The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognising or participating in any congress organised by a disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, the court also barred a former Senate President, David Mark, and other party stakeholders from interfering with the tenure and functions of elected state executives.
The ruling marks a significant twist in the lingering leadership crisis within the ADC, with implications for control of party structures ahead of future political activities.
The suit was instituted by Norman Obinna and six others, who approached the court on behalf of state chairmen and executive committees of the party, challenging the legality of actions taken by an interim national leadership.
The plaintiffs faulted the move to constitute a committee to conduct state congresses, arguing that such powers reside solely in duly elected organs recognised by the party’s constitution.
They urged the court to uphold the tenure of the state executives and halt any parallel arrangements capable of undermining their authority.
In her decision, Justice Abdulmalik held that the claims were meritorious, noting that the court was duty-bound to intervene where there are allegations of breach of constitutional or statutory provisions.
She ruled that while courts generally refrain from meddling in internal party affairs, exceptions exist where violations of the law are alleged.
The judge held that the appointment of a “congress committee” by the defendants was not backed by the party’s constitution and was therefore invalid.
Consequently, the court affirmed the subsisting tenure of the state executive committees and ruled that only duly elected party structures have the authority to organise congresses.
The court further set aside the committee constituted to conduct the congresses and restrained INEC from recognising any outcome of such processes.
It also barred Mark and other defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution, or taking steps capable of disrupting the existing state leadership.
The defendants had, however, argued that the matter was an internal party issue beyond the court’s jurisdiction and challenged the competence of the suit, including the plaintiffs’ locus standi.
They also maintained that internal dispute resolution mechanisms were not exhausted before the case was filed.
But the court dismissed the objections, insisting that political parties must operate strictly within the confines of their constitutions and the law.
0 Comments