Federal High Court Bars INEC From Recognizing Disputed African Democratic Congress Caretaker Congresses

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik restrains INEC and David Mark from recognizing ADC caretaker congresses, protecting the tenure of elected state executives.

By: AXL Media

Published: Apr 29, 2026, 7:35 AM EDT

Source: Information for this report was sourced from Channels Television

Judicial Intervention in African Democratic Congress Leadership Dispute

The Federal High Court in Abuja has intervened in the internal leadership struggle of the African Democratic Congress, issuing a significant ruling that restricts the national electoral body's involvement with certain party factions. Justice Joyce Abdulmalik presided over the matter, delivering a decision that effectively freezes the activities of a disputed caretaker leadership within the organization. This judicial action comes at a critical time as political parties navigate internal governance structures and prepare for upcoming electoral cycles, highlighting the ongoing role of the judiciary in mediating partisan administrative conflicts.

Restraining Orders Against INEC and Party Stakeholders

In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik specifically barred the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognizing or participating in any congresses organized by the caretaker leadership currently in dispute. The scope of the court’s order extends beyond the electoral commission, as it also restrains high profile party figures, including former Senate President David Mark, from interfering with the established functions of the party's leadership. This move is intended to maintain the status quo while the legal challenges surrounding the legitimacy of the caretaker committee are fully addressed by the court.

Protection of Elected State Executive Tenures

A primary focus of the court's decision is the protection of the tenure and authority of elected state executives within the African Democratic Congress. By barring the caretaker committee from organizing parallel congresses, the court has effectively shielded the current state chairpersons from being displaced by the disputed interim leadership. This aspect of the ruling addresses the immediate concerns of the plaintiffs, who sought to prevent what they characterized as an unauthorized encroachment on their legally recognized roles and responsibilities within the party structure.