In a split decision of two Justices to the Court of Appeal in Abuja has dismissed an appeal filed by the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Senator David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola against the judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja which stopped them from dissolving the States Working Committees (SWC) of the ADC.
The Appellate Court in the split judgments on Monday evening imposed a fine of N10m on them to be paid to the State Chairmen for violating the ADC Constitution to scuttle the four-year tenure of the chairmen.
Justices Okon Abang and Donatus Okorowo delivered the majority judgment while the Presiding Justice Abba Bello Mohammed delivered the minority judgment.
Both Justices Abang and Okorowo held that the Federal High Court was right in assuming jurisdiction in the case of the state chairmen because it was based on the breach of the ADC Constitution to remove the chairmen from office when their tenure had not lapsed.
They held that the issue of internal affairs claimed by appellants in their opposition to the case of the state chairmen cannot hold water because the breach of the party’s Constitution and section 223 of the 1999 Constitution were involved.
According to them, allowing the appellants to have their ways in breaching their own party Constitution would lead to anarchy and be capable of derailing democracy.
However, the Presiding Justice, Abba Bello Mohammed dissented, holding that the issue of election of officers and removal are exclusive internal affairs of the party.
Justice Mohammed held that there was nowhere in the ADC Constitution that only State Working Committee is empowered to set up Congress Committee for the purpose of electing officers for the State Executive Committee (SEC).
Besides, Justice Mohammed held that apart from the first respondent, the six other respondents did not disclose their interest and status to confer locus standi on them to file the suit at the Federal High Court.
He said that the claim of acting on behalf of state chairmen has collapsed due to failure of six out of the seven respondents to lay claim to being state chairmen and disclosing their states.
Justice Mohammed further stated that the respondents were unnecessarily apprehensive because internal dispute machinery was not activated before rushing to Court.
In the appeal, the ADC, Mark and Aregbesola challenged the decision of Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court which stopped them from cutting short the four years tenure of the state officers of the party.
The state Chairmen of the ADC represented by Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick acting as plaintiffs, had sued for themselves and on behalf of all State Chairmen and State Executive Committees of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
Their suit is marked FHC/ABJ/CS/58/2026.
Listed as defendants in the matter are the African Democratic Congress (ADC); Senator David Mark; Senator Patricia Akwashiki; Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi; Rauf Aregbesola; Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor, who is also sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee; and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
In an originating summons filed at the Federal High Court, the ADC state chairmen had sought judicial interpretation of Constitutional provisions guiding the tenure and powers of party organs, particularly in relation to the party’s leadership and planned state congresses.
At the heart of their dispute was whether the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committee and State Executive Committee remained valid and subsisting, pending the conduct of a properly constituted State Congresses and the convocation of a National Convention.
The plaintiffs had anchored their argument on Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution as well as Article 17 of the party’s constitution and a Final Mediation Report dated December 23, 2023.
The plaintiffs had contested the legality of actions taken by a body described as the “Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee,” which they claimed was not constitutionally recognized within the framework of the party.
Specifically, they are had asked the high court to determine whether such a body has the authority to appoint Congress Committee Members for the purpose of conducting state congresses.
In addition, the state chairmen challenged the validity of any appointments made by the caretaker body, describing them as unconstitutional, null, and void.
The plaintiffs further contended that the planned state congress slated for April 2026, if conducted under the supervision of the said caretaker committee, would constitute a gross violation of the party’s constitution.
In her judgment, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik had voided and set aside, the plan of the David Mark leadership to dissolve the State Working Committee.
Apparently not satisfied with the high court verdict, David Mark and others had approached the Court of Appeal praying it to set aside the judgment of the lower court on allegations of miscarriage of justice.
