ABUJA — Conflicting legal interpretations have emerged over the implication of the Court of Appeal judgment nullifying the African Democratic Congress (ADC)’s April 14 national convention, with some lawyers warning that the ruling could invalidate the party’s participation in the 2027 general elections unless overturned by the Supreme Court.
In a split decision delivered on Monday, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal in Abuja upheld an earlier judgment of the Federal High Court restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in the ADC’s state congresses, having found that they were conducted in violation of an existing court order preserving the tenure of the party’s original state executives.
The appellate court also nullified the national convention that produced the David Mark-led National Executive Committee and imposed a N10 million fine on the party.
The ruling has since generated intense debate among political stakeholders and legal practitioners over its implications for the ADC’s candidates ahead of the 2027 elections.
Atiku, ADC insist candidates remain unaffected
Reacting to the judgment, the party’s presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, dismissed suggestions that the verdict had invalidated the party’s primary elections, urging members not to be distracted by what he described as misinformation.
In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku maintained that the judgment was limited to the party’s congresses and national convention.
“The judgment currently being celebrated by some political actors does not amount to a judicial nullification of the ADC’s primary elections. There is a clear legal distinction between party congresses used to elect executives and statutory primary elections conducted for the nomination of candidates.”
Similarly, the ADC National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, said the ruling had no impact on the emergence of the party’s candidates.
According to him, “the judgement has no effect whatsoever on the direct primaries through which the party’s candidates have emerged at all levels.”
He added that the party had already commenced the process of appealing the judgment, which it considers legally unsustainable.
Lawyers warn of far-reaching consequences
Some legal practitioners, however, argue that unless the Court of Appeal judgment is set aside by the Supreme Court, every action taken by the leadership produced at the nullified convention—including the conduct of party primaries—could be rendered invalid.
Wayne Chikezie Elijah, Esq., said the judgment potentially affects the entire electoral process undertaken by the party.
“Election process is not just one process; it is a series of events. So, everything done amounts to a nullity. So, as it is now, the ADC has no candidates, whether presidential, governorship, House of Reps, all of them. So, they need to go back to the drawing board and revalidate,” he said.
He warned that if the deadline for conducting fresh primaries expires before the legal dispute is resolved, the party could be shut out of the 2027 elections.
“If the deadline has passed by that time, it simply means that the ADC is out of the way for next year’s elections.”
Although acknowledging the party’s right of appeal, he added:
“They have a right to appeal, but I had prophesied that ADC and NDC won’t be part of next year’s election.”
Hamid Ajibola Jimoh, Esq., expressed a similar view, arguing that the party should focus on addressing the legal implications of the judgment rather than interpreting it differently.
“Where the Court of Appeal decision has nullified all the political offices, it means that ADC has no candidate for the 2027 elections,” he said.
Jurisdiction remains contentious
Offering a different perspective, Ebuka Nwaeze, Esq., said the legal consequences would ultimately depend on whether the Supreme Court upholds the majority decision of the Court of Appeal.
He argued that if affirmed, the ruling would affect decisions taken by the party’s National Executive Committee.
However, he questioned whether the Federal High Court had jurisdiction over the matter, particularly where the dispute primarily involved internal party leadership.
“What did INEC do wrong? Was the main cause of action against INEC? If a faction of a political party is fighting another for leadership, it is unjusticeable,” he stated.
Court faulted violation of existing injunction
In the lead judgment delivered by Justice Okon Abang, the Court of Appeal held that the ADC conducted its state congresses and national convention in violation of a subsisting injunction issued on April 14, describing the party’s actions as a direct disregard for judicial authority.
The court warned that failure to enforce compliance with court orders by political parties could result in “absolute chaos.”
The appellate court consequently affirmed the April 29 judgment of Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which restrained the David Mark-led National Executive Committee from interfering with the tenure of the elected state executives, whose tenure, the court held, remained valid under Article 19(7) and (8) of the ADC Constitution.
The suit was instituted by the ADC Chairman in Abia State, Norman Obinna, alongside six other state chairmen, against David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Bolaji Abdullahi, Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor and INEC.
The defendants had argued that the case amounted to forum shopping, contending that similar issues had already been determined by the Abia State High Court in Umuahia in December 2025.
They also challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, insisting that the dispute was an internal party affair and that the party’s internal dispute resolution mechanisms had not been exhausted before litigation commenced.
Justice Abang rejected those arguments, holding that the issues before the court extended beyond internal party affairs because they involved INEC’s constitutional responsibilities under Section 223(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The court further held that the dispute was similar to the principles established by the Supreme Court in PDP v. Nwachukwu and PDP v. Sule Lamido, where compliance with party constitutions became a justiciable issue.
“My lord, the internal mechanism for the resolution of disputes by a political party can only be invoked and activated when the said matter constitutes an internal affair of the political party,” he said.
Justice Abang also ruled that the ADC leadership could no longer challenge the mediation committee’s report extending the tenure of the state executives because it had failed to appeal that decision.
“My lord, having not appealed against the findings that endorsed the mediation report, which had extended the tenure of the state executive committee members beyond four years, from May 2022 beyond 2026, the appellant (ADC executives) cannot contest or challenge the validity of that report,” he held.
Justice Donatus Okorowo concurred with the lead judgment.
Dissenting justice questions Federal High Court’s jurisdiction
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Abba Mohammed held that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit, notwithstanding the inclusion of INEC as a defendant.
He maintained that the principal issues before the court related to an internal leadership dispute that ought to have been determined by a State High Court.
“The law, as severally pronounced by the Supreme Court, is that it is the principal reliefs that invokes the jurisdiction of the court,” he said.
He added:
“Where a court has no jurisdiction to determine the principal relief, it cannot have jurisdiction over ancillary and consequential claims, especially where, as in this case, the ancillary and consequential claims are inextricably tied to the principal claim.”
With the ADC already filing an appeal to the Supreme Court, the final determination of the dispute is expected to shape not only the party’s internal leadership but also its eligibility to participate fully in the 2027 general elections.