The Court of Appeal in Abuja has upheld a Federal High Court judgment restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising state congresses conducted by committees appointed by the David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
In a split 2–1 decision, the appellate court dismissed the ADC’s appeal and affirmed that the Federal High Court had jurisdiction to hear the case. The majority held that the dispute involved compliance with constitutional and statutory provisions governing political parties rather than purely internal party affairs.
The court also upheld the trial court’s decision that the party’s caretaker leadership lacked the constitutional authority to appoint committees to conduct state congresses, maintaining that such powers reside with the elected state executive committees. It consequently nullified the congresses conducted while the case was pending and awarded ₦10 million in costs against the ADC.
Justice Abba Mohammed dissented, arguing that the matter concerned the party’s internal affairs and that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction. He therefore held that the earlier judgment should have been set aside.
Reacting to the judgment, the ADC announced plans to challenge the decision at the Supreme Court, insisting that the ruling concerns only ward, local government and state congresses and does not affect the party’s primary elections or candidates for the 2027 general election.
ADC presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar also rejected claims that the judgment invalidated his candidacy. He said his legal team had been instructed to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the court’s decision did not nullify the party’s presidential primary conducted under the Electoral Act.
Meanwhile, a related leadership dispute involving the Sokoto State chapter of the ADC was adjourned by the Federal High Court in Sokoto until July 22, 2026. The court granted an adjournment application, imposed a ₦500,000 cost on one of the defence counsel, and directed reimbursement of the plaintiff’s travel expenses upon presentation of receipts.
