Horse’s Mouth News appreciates support for good journalism and quality reportage.
(Naira Account, Nigeria)
Account number: 6281917627
Account name: Horse’s Mouth News Media
Bank: Monie Point
Abuja High Court restrains INEC from recognizing ADC state congresses
The Federal High Court Abuja, has restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any congress organised by the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik in her judgement barred former Senate President David Mark and other defendants from interfering with the functions and tenure of elected state executives.
Mr. Norman Obinna and six others, on behalf of state chairpersons and executive committees of the ADC, had filed summons, challenging the legality of actions taken by the interim national leadership of the ADC, which is currently under dispute.
They argued that such leadership does not possess the constitutional authority to organise state congresses or appoint committees for the purpose, thereby asking the court to affirm their tenure and put a hold on any parallel process, while also urging the court to stop INEC from recognising or participating in any congress organised by the caretaker committee.
The plaintiffs argued that the tenure of state executive committees stands until valid congresses are conducted, under both the party’s and the 1999 constitutions.
The defendants however asked the court to dismiss the suit in their preliminary objections, counter-affidavits, and written addresses, noting that the issue revolved around internal party affairs and therefore not justiciable.
Justice Abdulmalik who found “the issue in the originating summons meritorious,” said the crucial issue centred on whether the second to sixth defendants, had the constitutional and statutory authority to assume the powers of an elected state organ of the ADC.
The judge stated that section 223 of the 1999 Constitution mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections on a democratic basis, while article 23 of the party’s constitution recognizes a two-term of eight years for national and state officers.
According to Justice Abdulmalik, “the question is whether there is any infraction committed by Mark and co-defendants when they convened meetings and appointed a body known as a congress committee to organise state congresses.”
Speaking on the issue of internal party affairs, she noted: “the law is settled that courts will not interfere. However, where there is an allegation of breach of constitutional or statutory provisions, the court has a duty to intervene.
“Where a party alleges that its constitution has been violated, the court is bound to adjudicate. Any argument that this court lacks jurisdiction on that basis fails,” she held.
She stated that political parties must comply with their constitutions, adding that the procedure adopted by the defendants was not recognised by the party’s constitution, including the appointment of a congress committee.
The judge therefore ruled that the tenure of state executive committees remains valid and must be allowed to run its course, as only such elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses.
Justice Abdulmalik further set aside the appointment of the committee, restraining INEC from recognising any congress organised by it, while also restraining the defendants from organising congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution.
Before delivering judgment, the court ruled on preliminary objections and counter-affidavits by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs, on the grounds that they lacked merit.
