A federal high court sitting in Abuja on Wednesday, barred the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any congress organised by a disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
The presiding judge, Joyce Abdulmalik, also restrained former Senate President David Mark and other party chieftain from interfering in the functions and tenure of elected state executives.
Though, this is coming as Supreme Court ruling on the lingering leadership face-off of the party is being awaited.
On 22 April, the apex court reserved ruling on an appeal lodged by Mark-led faction of the party.
Ms Abdulmalik delivered her judgement in a suit filed by Norman Obinna and six others on behalf of ADC state chairpersons and executive committees.
The suit challenged the legality of actions taken by a caretaker or interim national leadership.
The plaintiffs argued that the caretaker body lacked the constitutional power to organise state congresses or appoint committees for that purpose.
They prayed the court to affirm their tenure and stop any parallel process.
In her verdict, Ms Abdulmalik noted that she found “the issue in the originating summons meritorious”.
She said the germane issue was whether the second to sixth defendants, including Mr Mark, had constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of an elected state organ of the ADC, whose tenure is constitutionally guaranteed.
According to her, section 223 of the 1999 Constitution provides that political parties shall conduct periodic elections on a democratic basis, while article 23 of the party’s constitution provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms of eight years.
Ms Abdulmalik said, therefore, that “the question is whether there is any infraction committed by Mr Mark and co-defendants when they convened meetings and appointed a body known as a congress committee to organise state congresses.”
Also, on the issue of internal affairs of political parties raised by the defendants, she noted that “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.”
“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 ruled.
She held that political parties must comply strictly with their constitutions and that courts can intervene where there is a breach of constitutional or statutory provisions.
She found that the procedure adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of a “congress committee”, is not recognised by the party’s constitution.
The judge ruled that the tenure of state executive committees remains valid and must be allowed to run its course. She said only those elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses.
The court set aside the appointment of the committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress organised by it.
It also restrained Mr Mark and other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution.
The judge further restrained them from taking steps that could undermine or disrupt the authority of the state executive committees.
