ABUJA — The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has affirmed 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).
The appellate court, in a split 2–1 decision, dismissed the appeal filed by the ADC leadership and upheld the April 29, 2026 judgment of Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
The ruling represents another significant development in the prolonged leadership crisis within the opposition party, coming at a politically sensitive period as parties prepare for the 2027 general elections.
Court rejects Mark-led congress structure
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Okon Abang, supported by Justice Donatus Okorowo, held that there was no sufficient basis to overturn the decision of the lower court.
The appellate court agreed that the responsibility for conducting state congresses rests with the duly elected state executive structures of the party, rather than a caretaker national leadership.
The court consequently upheld the order restraining the Mark-led caretaker leadership from interfering with the tenure and functions of the elected state executives.
The case arose from Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, instituted by several aggrieved ADC members, including Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Olona Yinka, Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang and Obianyo Patrick.
They sued on their own behalf and on behalf of ADC state chairmen and state executive committees across the country. INEC, David Mark, Rauf Aregbesola and other members of the caretaker/interim national leadership were among the defendants.
Congresses, convention declared nullities
One of the most consequential aspects of the judgment was the appellate court’s finding concerning congresses and the national convention conducted by the Mark-led caretaker structure.
The court held that those exercises amounted to nullities, having been conducted in defiance of a subsisting order of the Federal High Court.
According to the court, the caretaker leadership could not lawfully use the disputed structure to displace elected state executives whose tenure had not expired.
The court therefore maintained the judicial restriction preventing INEC from recognising the outcomes of such congresses.
It also awarded ₦10 million in costs against the ADC.
Why the Federal High Court intervened
The original suit centred on whether the Mark-led caretaker/interim National Working Committee had the constitutional authority to appoint committees to conduct ADC state congresses.
The plaintiffs argued that the move violated both the ADC Constitution and constitutional principles governing democratic party administration.
Justice Abdulmalik agreed, holding that neither the 1999 Constitution nor the ADC Constitution empowered the caretaker committee to appoint such committees to conduct state congresses.
The court further held that the tenure of the existing State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid and subsisting until properly conducted congresses and a national convention were held in accordance with the party’s constitution.
The court rejected the argument that the dispute was merely an internal affair of the political party, reasoning that allegations of violations of constitutional and statutory provisions could warrant judicial intervention.
Dissenting judge disagrees
However, the judgment was not unanimous.
Justice Abba Mohammed, who headed the three-member panel, dissented.
In his minority judgment, he held that the dispute was essentially an internal matter of a political party and questioned the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain the case.
He disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court had jurisdiction and argued that the court should not interfere with the political decisions of the party in the circumstances.
The majority, however, took the opposite position, holding that where allegations involve constitutional violations, the courts are empowered to intervene.
Justice Abang reportedly stressed that once a complaint is founded on an alleged constitutional infraction, the usual protection accorded to the internal affairs of political parties no longer prevents judicial scrutiny.
Potential implications for ADC’s 2027 preparations:
The judgment could have major implications for the ADC’s preparations for the 2027 elections, particularly because the disputed congress and national convention were used to establish party structures and produce candidates.
Reports indicate that the ruling could cast uncertainty over the legal standing of candidates who emerged through processes organised by the Mark-led faction, including former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, although the precise electoral consequences for individual candidates would depend on subsequent judicial decisions and INEC’s actions.
It is important to distinguish, however, between the court’s specific order concerning recognition of congresses and party structures and a definitive judicial order automatically cancelling every candidacy associated with the ADC. The reports on the judgment describe the potential impact on candidates as a consequence of the disputed party processes, not necessarily as an express order personally disqualifying each candidate.
ADC signals further legal challenge
Following the judgment, the ADC indicated that it would challenge the decision at the Supreme Court, setting the stage for another phase in the party’s protracted leadership dispute.
The development is particularly significant because the ADC leadership crisis has already generated conflicting judicial decisions and interventions by INEC.
Earlier in the year, INEC had removed the names of David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola from its records following an earlier Court of Appeal decision.
The crisis has consequently produced competing claims over which leadership structure should control the party and which officials the electoral commission should recognise.
A party caught between courts and the 2027 election calendar
With the 2027 elections approaching, the latest ruling places additional pressure on the ADC to resolve its leadership structure and ensure that its congresses, national convention and candidate-selection processes comply with applicable legal and constitutional requirements.
For INEC, the judgment reinforces the immediate restriction on recognising or participating in state congresses conducted under the disputed Mark-led caretaker structure, pending further judicial developments.
For the ADC, meanwhile, the Supreme Court remains the next major legal battleground.
The central question now is whether the apex court will ultimately uphold the Court of Appeal’s interpretation or reach a different conclusion on the authority of the Mark-led caretaker leadership and the validity of the party’s congresses and convention.
The ruling has therefore deepened, rather than ended, the legal battle over who controls the ADC — with potentially significant consequences for Nigeria’s opposition politics and the party’s preparations for the 2027 presidential election.