A fresh legal twist has emerged in the African Democratic Congress (ADC) ahead of the 2027 general elections after the Court of Appeal in Abuja upheld an earlier Federal High Court order restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising state congresses organised by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership.
Despite the judgment, the opposition party insists the ADC Appeal Court ruling does not invalidate candidates produced through its direct primary elections and has vowed to challenge the decision at the Supreme Court.
In a split 2-1 majority judgment, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal affirmed the earlier ruling delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court on April 29. Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Okon Abang, supported by Justice Donatus Okorowo, held that there was no basis to overturn the restraining order preventing the David Mark-led caretaker committee from organising state congresses through appointed committees.
The appellate court agreed with the lower court that conducting state congresses is the constitutional responsibility of duly elected state executive committees rather than the national caretaker leadership. However, the presiding Justice, Abba Mohammed, dissented, maintaining that the dispute was an internal party matter beyond the jurisdiction of the courts.
The legal dispute arose from a suit filed by several ADC 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 sued on behalf of ADC state chairmen and state executive committees, challenging the authority of the David Mark-led caretaker committee to appoint committees for conducting state congresses. They argued that only elected organs recognised under the party’s constitution possess the legal authority to organise congresses.
Justice Abdulmalik agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that neither the 1999 Constitution nor the ADC Constitution empowers the caretaker committee to constitute such congress committees. The court also held that the tenure of the party’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remains valid until properly constituted congresses and a national convention are conducted.
While courts generally avoid interfering in internal party affairs, the Court of Appeal ruled that judicial intervention became necessary because the dispute involved alleged constitutional and statutory violations. Justice Abang stated that once constitutional infractions are alleged, courts have a duty to intervene to safeguard democratic processes.
The appellate court also dismissed the ADC’s appeal, identified as CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026, and awarded N10 million in costs against the party. It further held that congresses and the national convention organised by the Mark-led leadership were conducted despite an existing court order and were therefore nullities.
Responding to the ADC Appeal Court ruling, National Publicity Secretary Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi maintained that the judgment affects only the dispute over state congresses and has no impact on candidates produced through the party’s direct primaries. He said the party has already initiated an appeal at the Supreme Court and expressed confidence that the dissenting opinion delivered by Justice Abba Mohammed better reflects the settled position of the law.
Abdullahi urged party members and supporters to remain calm, assuring them that the litigation would not derail the ADC’s preparations for the 2027 elections. He reiterated the party’s commitment to presenting what it described as a credible alternative government while pursuing all available legal remedies.
Former Vice President and ADC presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar also rejected suggestions that the judgment had invalidated his candidacy. Through his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku announced that his legal team had been instructed to seek a definitive interpretation from the Supreme Court.
According to him, the appellate court’s decision relates solely to state congresses and the tenure of state executives rather than the nomination of candidates through statutory primary elections. He argued that party congresses and candidate primaries are separate legal processes governed by different provisions of the law and insisted that the court ruled only on issues specifically placed before it.
Meanwhile, the party accused a group allegedly led by Nafiu Bala Gombe of using forged documents purportedly issued by INEC to falsely claim it had uploaded presidential and other candidates onto the commission’s nomination portal. The ADC called on INEC to investigate the alleged forgery, insisting that only the party leadership recognised by the electoral commission possesses access to the nomination portal and official nomination codes.
According to Abdullahi, INEC does not issue duplicate nomination credentials to competing factions within the same political party, making the reported upload legally impossible. The party reaffirmed that the names of its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, and vice-presidential candidate, Rotimi Amaechi, had already been validly uploaded to the commission’s portal.
ADC urged members, supporters and the general public to disregard what it described as attempts to create confusion, insisting it remains focused on its campaign ahead of the 2027 general elections while pursuing the matter before the Supreme Court.
