ABUJA — The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has delivered a significant judgment in the leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress (ADC), affirming the continued tenure of the party’s elected State Executive Committees and restricting the activities of the party’s purported Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee.
The judgment was delivered on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, by Justice J. O. Abdulmalik in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, filed by seven plaintiffs, including Don Norman Obinna and other State Chairmen and Executive Committee members of the ADC, against the African Democratic Congress, Senator David Mark, Senator Patricia Akwashiki and others, including the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). �
CamScanner 30-04-2026 17.31.pdf
In a major declaration, the court held that, by virtue of Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, Article 17 of the ADC Constitution and the Final Mediation Report of December 23, 2023, the four-year tenure of the elected State Executive Committees remains valid pending the proper conduct of State Congresses and a National Convention.
The court further declared that the organization of State Congresses is the exclusive function of the duly constituted State Executive Committees under Articles 19(7) and 19(9) of the ADC Constitution.
Justice Abdulmalik also ruled that the body described as the “Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee” does not possess constitutional authority under the ADC Constitution to appoint Congress Committee members for the purpose of conducting State Congresses.
Consequently, the court nullified the appointment of Congress Committee members made by the purported Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee and restrained INEC from recognizing or attending any congress or event organized by that body.
The court equally issued an order restraining the defendants from recognizing, accepting or giving effect to any local government or ward congresses organized by the defendants, except those organized and conducted by the plaintiffs identified in the suit.
In another far-reaching order, the court granted a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and persons acting through them from interfering with the functions, duties and tenure of the affected State Executive Committees.
The court went further to permanently restrain the first to sixth defendants from organizing State Congresses or any National Convention for the ADC.
Justice Abdulmalik concluded that the questions raised by the plaintiffs were meritorious and sufficient to warrant the declaratory and injunctive reliefs sought, dismissing in its entirety the fourth defendant’s counter-claim against the plaintiffs.
Implications for ADC
The judgment represents a major legal setback for any faction seeking to use a caretaker or interim structure to reorganize the party at the state level without relying on the existing constitutional structures of the ADC.
It also places INEC in a position where, according to the court’s orders, it must refrain from recognizing or participating in congresses organized by the purported caretaker structure.
The ruling is therefore likely to have significant consequences for the ongoing struggle over the control and legitimacy of ADC structures ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The judgment was signed by Justice J. O. Abdulmalik on April 29, 2026.
