Fresh uncertainty has engulfed Nigeria’s opposition African Democratic Congress (ADC) after the Court of Appeal upheld a ruling restricting the authority of the party’s caretaker leadership, prompting the party to announce plans to challenge the decision at the Supreme Court.
The judgment, delivered in Abuja on Monday, reaffirmed an earlier Federal High Court order restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising congresses conducted by committees appointed by the caretaker leadership headed by former Senate president David Mark.
The ruling has intensified internal tensions within the ADC less than two years before the 2027 general election, although the party and its presidential candidate, former vice-president Atiku Abubakar, insisted that the decision has no bearing on candidates who emerged through its direct primary elections.
In a split decision, Justices Okon Abang and Donatus Okorowo upheld the lower court’s judgment, concluding that only the party’s duly elected state executive committees have the authority to organise state congresses.
Justice Abang held that the dispute extended beyond the internal affairs of a political party because it raised constitutional questions requiring judicial intervention.
“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,” he ruled.
The court added that intervention was necessary to “prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria”.
Relying on a recent Supreme Court decision arising from the Peoples Democratic Party’s leadership dispute, the majority held that congresses and the national convention organised by the Mark-led caretaker committee were invalid because they were conducted in defiance of an existing Federal High Court order issued on 14 April.
The court also awarded costs of N10m against the ADC.
The panel’s presiding judge, Justice Abba Mohammed, dissented, arguing that the dispute concerned the internal affairs of a political party and therefore fell outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
He maintained that the Federal High Court ought not to have entertained the case, insisting that judicial intervention in such political disputes was inappropriate.
The litigation arose after several ADC state chairmen challenged the caretaker committee’s decision to appoint committees to oversee state congresses, arguing that the move breached both the party’s constitution and the Nigerian constitution.
The Federal High Court had previously ruled that neither the party’s constitution nor the 1999 Constitution empowered the caretaker committee to perform those functions, holding that the tenure of elected state executives remained valid until fresh congresses were lawfully conducted.
The ADC, however, rejected the appellate court’s decision and said it had already begun the process of appealing to the Supreme Court.
In a statement signed by its national publicity secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, the party sought to reassure members that the ruling did not invalidate the outcome of its direct primaries.
“This judgment has no effect whatsoever on the direct primaries through which the party’s candidates have emerged at all levels,” the statement said.
“The party has already commenced the process of appealing the judgment, which we respectfully disagree with and consider to be legally unsustainable.”
The party also pointed to the dissenting judgment, arguing that it more accurately reflected the settled legal position, and urged members to remain focused on preparations for the 2027 elections.
Atiku, who is contesting the presidency on the ADC platform, likewise dismissed suggestions that the ruling had undermined the party’s electoral prospects.
In a statement issued by his spokesman, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice-president accused political opponents of deliberately misrepresenting the judgment to weaken the opposition.
“The judgment being celebrated relates to the conduct of state congresses and the tenure of state executive committees,” he said.
“It does not, from the facts available, amount to a judicial nullification of the ADC’s primary elections conducted under the Electoral Act.”
Atiku argued that the election of party executives and the nomination of candidates were legally distinct processes governed by different constitutional and statutory provisions.
“There is a world of legal difference between the election of party executives through internal congresses and the nomination of candidates through statutory primary elections,” he said.
He also criticised what he described as attempts to litigate the case through social media rather than the courts.
“Our opponents appear more eager to write judgments on social media than to read the one delivered by the Court of Appeal,” he said. “Nigeria is governed by the rule of law, not by headlines, hashtags or the fantasies of political opportunists.”
The former vice-president said the party had instructed its legal team to seek a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court, expressing confidence that the country’s highest court would ultimately resolve the dispute.
While the judgment leaves the legality of the ADC’s internal leadership arrangements under renewed scrutiny, the party insists its 2027 candidates remain unaffected as it prepares for what is likely to become another closely watched legal battle over the future of one of Nigeria’s principal opposition platforms.
