ADC State leaders move to stop INEC from recognising Interim Committee activities

Nkem Ukaegbu, Umuahia

A fresh leadership crisis has erupted within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) as elected State Chairmen and members of State Executive Committees have approached the Federal High Court of Nigeria seeking judicial interpretation of key constitutional provisions guiding the party’s structure and operations.

According to the court judgment made available to The Mirror by the Chairman, Abia State, ADC, Hon. Don Norman Obinna, the plaintiffs, drawn from various states, are challenging the legality and authority of a body described as the “Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee,” accusing it of acting outside the bounds of the party’s constitution.

At the heart of the suit are five critical questions for determination by the court, centering on whether the tenure of duly elected State Executive Committees has expired or remains valid pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and a national convention.

The plaintiffs argue that, based on Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, alongside Article 17 of the ADC Constitution and a Final Mediation Report dated December 23, 2023, their four-year tenure remains legally binding until valid congresses are conducted.

They further contend that under Article 19 (7) and (9) of the party’s constitution, the responsibility for organising state congresses rests exclusively with the State Executive Committees, not any interim or caretaker body.

The suit questions the legitimacy of the caretaker committee’s actions, particularly its decision to appoint Congress Committee members for the conduct of state congresses scheduled for April 2026. According to the plaintiffs, such appointments are unconstitutional, null, and void, as the body making them is not recognised under the party’s constitutional framework.

In addition, the plaintiffs are asking the court to determine whether the planned congresses constitute a gross violation of the ADC Constitution, insisting that any process not initiated by duly elected state structures undermines internal democracy within the party.

Upon determination of these issues, the plaintiffs are seeking a series of declaratory and injunctive reliefs. These include a declaration affirming the continued tenure of the elected State Executive Committees and recognition of their exclusive authority to organise state congresses.

They are also asking the court to nullify all appointments made by the caretaker committee regarding congress arrangements and to restrain the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any congress organised by the interim body.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs seek perpetual injunctions preventing the defendants and their agents from interfering with their functions, tenure, and responsibilities, as well as stopping any attempt to convene state congresses or a national convention outside the framework they consider lawful.

The development signals a deepening internal conflict within the ADC, raising concerns about the party’s cohesion ahead of future electoral activities. Political observers note that the outcome of the case could significantly shape the party’s leadership structure and influence its readiness for upcoming political contests.

As of the time of filing this report, no official response had been issued by the caretaker committee or the national leadership of the party.