The zonal secretary, South East, of the African Democratic Congress, (ADC), Barrister Kalu Agu, has criticised the Court of Appeal’s decision affirming Justice Joyce Abdulmalik’s judgment on the ADC leadership dispute, describing the ruling as “a complete caricature of the judiciary” and arguing that it was based on constitutional provisions that do not exist in the party’s constitution.
This comes after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of Justice Joyce Abdul Malik, which restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising the Senator David Mark-led leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
Reacting during an interview on ARISE NEWS on Tuesday, Barrister Agu described the ruling as “a complete caricature of the judiciary” and argued that it was based on constitutional provisions that do not exist in the party’s constitution.
“The judgment of Justice Joyce Abdul Malik, which was affirmed yesterday by the Court of Appeal, has made a complete caricature of the judiciary,” he stated.
Adding, he said: “If you read the judgment of Justice Abdul Malik—particularly the second relief she granted—she predicated her ruling on the finding that Article 19, subsections 7 and 9 of the constitution of the ADC, gave the State Working Committee and the State Executive Committee the exclusive powers to organize state congresses.”
Barrister Agu challenged Nigerians and the international community to obtain a certified true copy of the ADC constitution from INEC, insisting that Articles 19(7) and 19(9), cited in the judgment, do not grant state party committees the power to conduct state congresses.
“I am calling on Nigerians and the international community today to go to INEC, request the certified true copy of the ADC constitution, and read for themselves if there is any such provision that gives those powers to the state committees. There is none. There is no such provision. I wonder if the justices of the Court of Appeal actually read the provisions of that article upon which Justice Joyce Abdul Malik predicated her judgment,” he questioned.
Responding to concerns that the dispute could affect the party’s primaries, Agu dismissed suggestions that the ADC was in disarray. He maintained that the party had already uploaded the names of candidates produced from what he described as valid primaries conducted by the David Mark-led executive.
“First of all, the ADC is not in disarray. The party has already uploaded all of its candidates who emerged from the valid primaries conducted by the David Mark-led executive last week,” he maintained.
Insisting that there was no confusion within the ADC, Agu argued that no court had nullified the party’s primary elections conducted under the supervision of the David Mark-led leadership and that no pending suit anywhere in the country was challenging their validity.
“Furthermore, there is no confusion within the ADC. There is no judgment anywhere in the country that has nullified the primary elections conducted by the ADC under the supervision of David Mark, nor is there any pending matter in any court in Nigeria challenging those primaries.”
Expressing concerns about judicial credibility, Barrister Agu argued that lower courts were departing from settled Supreme Court precedents. He insisted that the apex court had long held that the internal affairs of political parties are non-justiciable, but claimed that some lower courts continue to distinguish such cases despite the established legal position.
“My main worry today is that when the Supreme Court has settled an issue, that principle becomes binding on all lower courts under the doctrine of stare decisis. The issue of the internal affairs of a political party is something the Supreme Court settled over 15 years ago, ruling that it is a non-justiciable matter (meaning it is outside the jurisdiction of the courts). Yet, our lower courts consistently try to find ways to distinguish their cases from these already settled principles of law. That is my major concern,” he said.
Addressing the allegation that the ADC defied a court order by proceeding with its state congresses, Barrister Agu denied that any restraining order was in force at the time. He argued that the congresses had already been concluded before Justice Joyce Abdul Malik issued an order directing the parties to maintain the status quo.
“I will make the certified true copy of the Appeal Court judgment, read by Honorable Justice Abba Mohammed, available to this station. As a chieftain of the ADC, let me explain what actually transpired: there was no restraining order in place against the conduct of the congresses at the time they were held.
“The congresses were conducted between April 7 and April 11, and the National Convention took place on April 14. The congresses had already been concluded across the board when Justice Abdulmalik issued an order on April 14 directing the parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum (the state of affairs before the conflict). By the time that order was made, we had already completed our congresses and were physically at the convention arena.
“If you read the minority judgment delivered by Justice Abba Mohammed, it is clear that the ADC was not even represented in court on the day Justice Abdul Malik issued that status quo order. So, at no point prior to or during the congresses was the ADC legally restrained,” he explained.
Concluding, Barrister Agu urged the judiciary not to undermine Nigeria’s democracy and called on President Bola Tinubu to ensure that political parties are allowed to freely contest the 2027 general elections.
“The judiciary should not destroy our democracy. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu should allow political parties to freely contest the upcoming 2027 general elections.”
Favour Odima
Follow us on:
