Amidst the existential threat confronting it arising from Monday’s judgement of the Appeal Court, Abuja Division nullifying its state congresses and national convention, the embattled African Democratic Congress (ADC) is confident it would survive the onslaught, cock-sure that the Supreme Court would reverse the judgement which he asserted was not a true reflection of the law.
Newsmata.com.ng reports that in a split decision of two Justices to one, the appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the ADC, Senator David Mark, its national chairman, and the national secretary, Rauf Aregbesola against the judgement of the Federal High Court in Abuja which stopped them from dissolving the States Working Committees (SWC) of the party.
The lead judgement was delivered by Justice Okon Abang, and supported by Justice Donatus Okorowo, while the Presiding Justice Abba Bello Mohammed delivered the minority judgment.
The court imposed a fine of N10m on the appellants to be paid to the aggrieved State Chairmen for violating ADC’s Constitution thereby scuttling their four-year tenure.
But reacting to the judgement in an interview on ARISE NEWS Prime Time programme Monday night, the National Legal Adviser of the ADC, Professor Oserheimen Osunbor dismissed it as defying logic, spotting the perceived “several errors” in it.
The professor of constitutional law, who appeared unruffled, contended that the party neither violated any court order nor held any congresses and convention as held by the Appeal Court.
He said the Electoral Act 2026, despite its imperfections, was its saving grace by providing for direct primaries.
According to the former governor, “We anticipated where the plaintiffs were going to. All this plethora of cases have been targeted at preventing ADC from fielding candidates, and we are smarter than them. What this judge said was to prevent us from holding congresses and convention and we never held any congress or convention.”
Justice Abang not only nullified the party’s Congresses but also affirmed the judgement of a Federal High Court which restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any state congresses organised by committees appointed by the David Mark-led caretaker committee of the ADC.
Unless reversed by the Supreme Court, the implication of this judgement is that the ADC’s presidential candidate – former vice president Atiku Abubakar and all other candidates who emerged from its primaries across the country, would not be on the ballot in the 2027 general elections.
But faulting the conclusion of the court that state executives of the party ought to have conducted their respective congresses, Osunbor queried the sense in it.
Commenting on the judgement, he said, “My reaction is of course one of disappointment because I thought the issues were very straightforward. But here we are faced with Court of Appeal judgement that, in my opinion, defies logic.
“I thought it was a straightforward matter. What the Federal High Court decided – Hon. Justice Abdulmalik – on the 14th of April was to nullify the congresses on the ground that they were conducted by a committee set up by the National Working Committee of the ADC and that that was wrong; that it is the state executives that should have conducted their own elections. Does that make sense?
“That was the decision – that the plaintiffs and chairmen of political parties are the rightful persons under the constitution of the ADC to have conducted their state congresses. But that defies what we all know as Nigerians. It is the leadership of every political party that conducts congresses. Otherwise, it would be an absurdity to say that a state chairman and members of the state exco should be the ones conducting their own elections.”
Asked to clarify if there was anything in the constitution of the ADC that gave substance to the ruling, Osunbor responded expressly, “absolutely nothing.” He was however quick to add that “The only thing the court relied on was a provision in Article 19 paragraph 9 which talks of the responsibilities of the state working committee, and one of them is that it is the business of the state working committee to prepare the agenda for a state congress.”
According to him, “If the court had looked at Article 19 subsection 12 that expressly confers powers on the National Working Committee to dissolve a state exco, appoint any committee of their liking to perform any duty – those are internal management matters of political parties, and they are not justiciable.”
The former governor hailed Justice Mohammed’s dissenting opinion which he noted reflected the true position of the law.
Specifying the “several errors” in the judgement, he said “The first error is that the federal high court lacked jurisdiction to entertain internal affairs of any political party and that included administration – how do you conduct elections; how do you conduct your businesses – those are internal administrative responsibilities of the party.
“If you listened to the minority judgement, it would be clear to everybody to see that this is really the true position of the law,” stating that the two to one split judgement should bother Nigerians.
The erudite law teacher believed that just as he predicted correctly that the controversial ‘status quo ante bellum” saga which INEC latched onto to derecognise the ADC would be reversed by the apex court, the present case would not be different.
“Let me recall that the last time I was here in this studio, we were discussing this status quo ante bellum, and I did express my opinion at that time that that judgement was wrong. That was a unanimous judgement of three justices of the court of appeal and the Supreme Court said it was wrong. It didn’t lie within them, having decided on that case that the appeal was incompetent, it didn’t lie within their power to now go and be issuing an order based on an appeal that was incompetent.
“So, likewise, I am confident, now that we have an opportunity to appeal to the Supreme Court, that the judgement, in my view, is wrong. It is not a correct reflection of the law. In fact, one of the points that the minority judge said is that they didn’t even read the provisions of the ADC constitution; they just picked from that one which says National Working Committee should prepare an agenda and based their decisions only on that.
“The minority judgement said it that the duty of a court in interpreting the constitution of any statute is to read it in its entirety, not to just pick one and shut your eyes against the other.”
Faulting the judges’ verdict that the party violated a subsisting court order restraining it from holding state congresses, Osunbor asserted that an injunction cannot be granted on an action that had already taken place.
According to him, “Well, again, the minority judgement said that court order was delivered on the 14th of April when the national convention was underway and the judgement that was delivered that day didn’t come to our notice until after the national convention.
“You issue an injunction to prevent something from happening. You don’t grant an injunction in respect of a matter that has already taken place. These state congresses have already taken place. The national convention was already underway, and the judge mentioned that even the lead counsel of the plaintiffs, learned silk, told the court that the state congresses had been concluded.
“He told the court that as they were there, ADC was holding its national convention. So, what other proof do you need if the counsel to the plaintiffs admitted before the court that these matters had been concluded? It therefore was not within the province of the court to be granting an injunction to restrain something that had already happened.”
