The Federal High Court in Abuja has barred the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any congress organised by committees set up by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), dealing a major blow to the party’s planned 2027 election preparations.
In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik also restrained the David Mark-led group from interfering with the tenure and functions of duly elected state executives of the party, ruling that only constitutionally recognised state structures have the authority to conduct state congresses.
The court held that the responsibility for organising state congresses lies strictly with the State Executive Committees and not with the national caretaker leadership.
Justice Abdulmalik further ruled that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remains valid and subsisting pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and the convocation of a national convention.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, was filed by aggrieved party members including Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick.
The plaintiffs said they were acting for themselves and on behalf of all State Chairmen and State Executive Committees of the ADC.
Listed as defendants were the ADC, Senator David Mark, Senator Patricia Akwashiki, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor—sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee—and INEC.
The plaintiffs challenged the decision of the Mark-led caretaker leadership to constitute a congress committee for the purpose of conducting state congresses, arguing that such appointments were unconstitutional and violated the party’s internal rules.
They also contended that the planned April 2026 state congresses, if conducted under the supervision of the caretaker committee, would amount to a gross breach of the ADC Constitution.
According to them, only duly elected party organs recognised by the party’s constitution possess the power to organise congresses.
In agreeing with the plaintiffs, Justice Abdulmalik held that neither the 1999 Constitution nor the ADC Constitution empowers the caretaker or interim National Working Committee led by David Mark to appoint committees for state congresses.
“The law is settled that courts will not interfere. However, where there is an allegation of breach of constitutional or statutory provisions, the court has a duty to intervene,” the judge ruled.
“Where a party alleges that its constitution has been violated, the court is bound to adjudicate. Any argument that this court lacks jurisdiction on that basis fails,” she added.
The court cited Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles, as well as Article 23 of the ADC Constitution, which provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.
Justice Abdulmalik stressed that while courts are generally reluctant to interfere in the internal affairs of political parties, judicial intervention becomes necessary where constitutional or statutory breaches are established.
She held that evidence before the court clearly showed that the tenure of the ADC state executive committees remained valid and must be allowed to run its full course without interference.
Consequently, the court nullified every process initiated by the David Mark-led caretaker leadership regarding the planned state congresses and affirmed that only elected state structures can lawfully organise such exercises.
