The Court of Appeal in Abuja has upheld a Federal High Court order restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in state congresses organised by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

In a split judgment delivered on Monday, the appellate court affirmed the earlier ruling of the Federal High Court, with two members of the three-member panel supporting the decision while one justice dissented.

Justice Okon Abang, who delivered the lead judgment, held that there was no basis to overturn the April 29 ruling of the Federal High Court presided over by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik.

The appellate court also sustained the order restraining the David Mark-led caretaker leadership from interfering with the tenure and functions of the party’s elected state executive committees.

‘INEC Did Not Give Access To Nafiu Gombe’ – Official

Justices Okon Abang and Donatus Okorowo formed the majority that upheld the lower court’s decision, ruling that the authority to organise state congresses rests with the duly elected state executive committees rather than a national caretaker leadership.

The court consequently barred INEC from recognising the outcome of any state congress conducted by committees appointed by the caretaker leadership.

However, the Presiding Justice, Abba Mohammed, disagreed with the majority.

In his dissenting judgment, Mohammed held that the dispute concerned the internal affairs of a political party, a matter he said falls outside the jurisdiction of the courts.

He ruled that the Federal High Court lacked the authority to entertain the suit.

The majority judgment further declared that the state congresses and national convention conducted by the David Mark-led caretaker committee were invalid because they were held in violation of an existing court order issued on April 14.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal filed by the ADC, marked CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026, seeking to set aside the Federal High Court judgment.

Justice Abang stated that judicial intervention became necessary because the issues before the court involved constitutional compliance rather than mere internal party disagreements.

“The judiciary has a responsibility to prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria,” he said.

Citing a recent Supreme Court decision on the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) leadership crisis, the appellate court held that once allegations of constitutional violations are raised, such disputes cease to be purely internal party matters.

“Once a complaint before the court is anchored on a constitutional infraction, the shield of internal affairs drops and the veil is lifted for judicial intervention,” Abang added.

The court also awarded ₦10 million in costs against the ADC.

A: Ruling May Affect Party’s 2027 Preparations

The judgment could have significant implications for the ADC’s preparations for the 2027 general election, particularly regarding the validity of decisions taken during the national convention conducted by the David Mark-led faction.

Among those reportedly emerging from the convention were former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and other aspirants expected to contest future elections under the party’s platform.

While the judgment declared the convention invalid, the ultimate effect on candidates and nominations may depend on subsequent court proceedings and any decisions taken by INEC.

The case originated from a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, filed before the Federal High Court by seven members of the ADC on behalf of the party’s state chairmen and executive committees.

The plaintiffs—Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Olona Yinka, Dr Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang and Obianyo Patrick—challenged the decision of the caretaker leadership to appoint committees to conduct state congresses.

They named the ADC, Senator David Mark, Senator Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor and INEC as defendants.

The plaintiffs argued that the caretaker committee lacked constitutional authority under the ADC constitution to supervise state congresses, insisting that only duly elected party organs possessed such powers.

Justice Abdulmalik agreed with the argument, holding that neither the 1999 Constitution nor the ADC Constitution empowered the caretaker National Working Committee to establish committees for that purpose.

The trial court also found that the tenure of the existing state executive committees remained valid and should continue until properly constituted congresses and a national convention were conducted.

The court further dismissed preliminary objections challenging its jurisdiction, ruling that the matter involved constitutional and statutory issues, including the role of INEC, thereby bringing it within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

Reacting to the judgment, the ADC announced its intention to challenge the decision at the Supreme Court.

The party was represented during the proceedings by its National Welfare Secretary, Nkem Ukandu.

With the planned appeal, the legal dispute over the leadership of the ADC, the validity of its congresses and national convention, and the status of decisions taken by the caretaker leadership is expected to continue before Nigeria’s apex court.