By Nchetachi Chukwuajah
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) and its presidential candidate for the 2027 general election, Atiku Abubakar, have reacted to the judgement of the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which upheld the judgement of the Federal High Court restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in state congresses organised by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the ADC.
The court gave the ruling on Monday, July 13, in a 2-1 split judgement of the three-member panel of the Court of Appeal.
Reacting to the judgement, the ADC assured members of the party and the general public that the judgement does not affect the direct primaries through which the party’s candidates have emerged at all levels.
The National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, said the party had already “commenced the process of appealing the judgement, which we respectfully disagree with and consider to be legally unsustainable.”
Abdullahi also noted the dissenting judgement of the presiding Justice, which, he said, “in our view, more accurately reflects the settled position of the law and the Party’s position.”
In his reaction, Atiku Abubakar dismissed claims that the Appeal Court’s judgement on the party’s leadership crisis had invalidated the ADC’s primary elections for the 2027 general election, insisting that the ruling was limited to the conduct of the party’s congresses and the tenure of its state executives.
Atiku said attempts to portray the decision as the collapse of the ADC’s presidential ticket amounted to political propaganda designed to mislead Nigerians and weaken the opposition.
In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president urged party members and supporters to remain calm, assuring them that the judgement did not affect candidates who emerged through the party’s direct primaries.
“Those celebrating today should celebrate with caution. Those attempting to sell false hope to their supporters should remember that political propaganda can never substitute for judicial pronouncements.
“The judgment being celebrated relates to the conduct of state congresses and the tenure of State Executive Committees. It does not, from the facts available, amount to a judicial nullification of the ADC’s primary elections conducted under the Electoral Act,” the statement read.
He argued that there was a clear legal distinction between the election of party executives through internal congresses and the nomination of candidates through statutory primary elections.
“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. They are distinct legal exercises, governed by different legal principles and serving different constitutional purposes. One should not be confused with the other.
“It is a settled principle of law that courts determine only the issues submitted before them. They neither manufacture disputes nor pronounce on matters that were never placed before them. Any attempt to stretch this judgement beyond its proper scope is an invitation to legal absurdity,” he stated.
The Appeal Court’s majority judgement, delivered by Justice Okon Abang and supported by Justice Donatus Okorowo, held that the dispute involved constitutional questions and was therefore not shielded by the doctrine of internal party affairs.
The court corroborated the Federal High Court’s ruling that the responsibility for conducting state congresses of political parties rests with elected state executive committees, not with the national leadership.
However, the presiding Justice, Abba Mohammed, held a dissenting view, noting that the matter was an internal party dispute that ought not to have been entertained by the Federal High Court.
The Federal High Court had, in its judgement on April 29, held that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid and subsisting, pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and the convocation of a national convention.
The judgement followed a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, lodged before the court by aggrieved members of the ADC.
The suit was filed by Don Obinna, Johnny Derek, Obah Ehigiator, Olona Yinka, Charles Omideji, Samuel Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick, on behalf of all state chairpersons and State Executive Committees of the ADC.
Defendants in the suit are the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
The plaintiffs challenged the decision by the Mark-led leadership of the ADC to constitute committees to conduct state congresses and the validity of appointments made by the caretaker committee.
They argued that planned state congresses slated for April 2026, if conducted under the supervision of the said caretaker committee, would constitute a gross violation of the party’s constitution.
It was further the position of the plaintiffs that only duly elected party organs recognised under the party’s constitution possess the power to conduct congresses.
The Appeal Court, while upholding the restraining order, said it had a duty to intervene to “prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria.”
It cited a recent Supreme Court judgment in the leadership crisis rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to hold that the ADC case could not be classified as a domestic affair of a political party.
“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,” Justice Abang added in the majority judgment.
The panel consequently dismissed the appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026, which the ADC lodged to challenge the judgement of the Federal High Court judgement.
