By Roy Ofori
The recent judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division, setting aside the David Mark-led ADC State Congress and National Convention process is more than a technical legal victory for the ADC state chairmen. It is a powerful reaffirmation of a principle too often abused in Nigerian party politics: political parties may be voluntary associations, but they are not private estates where constitutional order can be suspended at the convenience of powerful actors.
At the heart of the judgment is a simple but profound question: who has the lawful authority to conduct state congresses and participate in the process leading to a national convention of the African Democratic Congress? The court, after reviewing the ADC Constitution, the Electoral Act framework, and the facts placed before it, answered clearly in favour of the elected State Working Committees and State Executive Committees whose tenure had not expired.
The plaintiffs, led by state chairmen and members of the ADC State Executive Committees, argued that their four-year mandate remained valid and that neither a caretaker arrangement nor an interim national working committee could lawfully displace them. The court agreed. It declared that, by virtue of the relevant provisions of the ADC Constitution, the elected state structures remain the competent organs to organize state congresses and participate in processes leading to the national convention. The court consequently nullified the appointment of congress committee members by the caretaker/interim arrangement and restrained INEC from recognizing or attending congresses and conventions organized through that disputed process.
This judgment is significant because it protects the sanctity of tenure. In political parties, as in constitutional democracy, tenure is not a decorative phrase. Once members are elected into party offices for a defined period, their mandate cannot be casually truncated by administrative fiat, factional declarations, or emergency political engineering. To permit such conduct would mean that internal democracy exists only on paper, while real power belongs to those who can summon meetings, issue notices, and manufacture committees in their own image.
The ruling also sends a clear warning against the misuse of caretaker structures. Caretaker or interim arrangements may sometimes arise in party administration, but they cannot become instruments for bypassing elected organs. The court’s reasoning reinforces the view that an interim body cannot lawfully assume powers that the party constitution vests in elected state structures. Political convenience cannot override constitutional procedure.
It also strengthens the role of INEC as a regulator that must not lend legitimacy to unlawful party processes. By restraining INEC from recognizing or attending congresses and conventions organized by the disputed caretaker/interim arrangement, the court reminded both parties and the electoral umpire that statutory oversight must be anchored on legality, not political pressure.
For the ADC chairmen, this judgment is not merely a courtroom victory; it is a moral and institutional vindication. They stood on the party constitution, insisted on due process, and challenged what they considered an unlawful attempt to sideline elected structures. In a political culture where many prefer silence in the face of internal impunity, their decision to approach the court represents a defence of party democracy from within.
Those who dismiss such cases as “internal party affairs” miss the larger democratic point. Political parties are the gateways to public power. If internal structures are manipulated, congresses distorted, and conventions stage-managed, the damage does not end inside the party secretariat. It affects candidate emergence, electoral choices, public representation, and ultimately the quality of governance.
The ADC, like every political party aspiring to national relevance, must understand that reform cannot be preached externally while internal legality is treated casually. A party that seeks to rescue democracy must first respect democracy within its own house. A party that speaks of inclusion must not marginalize its elected organs. A party that claims to be different must not reproduce the same culture of imposition, exclusion, and constitutional mutilation that Nigerians have long rejected.
The Federal High Court has now drawn the line. The lawful state chairmen and executive committees cannot be wished away. Their mandate must be respected. Any genuine rebuilding of the ADC must begin with recognition of its legitimate structures, reconciliation with aggrieved members, and a transparent return to constitutional order.
This judgment should therefore not be seen as a setback for the ADC. Properly understood, it is an opportunity. It offers the party a chance to reset, abandon factional arrogance, and rebuild on the foundation of legality, inclusion, and trust.
For Nigeria’s democracy, the message is even broader: internal democracy is not an optional ritual. It is the first test of any party’s fitness to govern. Where party constitutions are ignored, national constitutions will not be safe. Where elected party officers can be displaced at will, elected public officers may one day face the same contempt for mandate and procedure.
The ADC chairmen have won more than a case. They have affirmed a democratic principle: no convention, no congress, and no leadership process can stand securely where it is built on the violation of a party’s own constitution.
The court has spoken. The ADC must now listen.
