In politics, timing is often as consequential as substance. So, it may prove for Nigeria’s opposition after the Court of Appeal, in a split 2-1 decision, upheld a Federal High Court judgment restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognizing state congresses organized by committees appointed by the David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC). The ruling is more than a procedural dispute over party administration. It strikes at the organizational foundations of the party that has recently emerged as the preferred platform for Nigeria’s disparate opposition forces seeking to challenge President Bola Tinubu and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) in the 2027 general election.
The majority judgment, delivered by Justice Okon Abang and supported by Justice Donatus Okorowo, affirmed the earlier ruling of Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court. The judges held that the dissolution of elected state executives by the caretaker leadership violated the ADC’s own constitution and that congresses conducted by replacement committees could not enjoy legal recognition. In reaching that conclusion, the court rejected the argument that the dispute fell exclusively within the internal affairs of a political party. Once a party breaches its own constitution, the majority reasoned, the matter becomes justiciable. The judges also agreed that the aggrieved state chairmen possessed the legal standing to challenge their removal and noted that their tenure had previously been extended under party arrangements.
Perhaps most damagingly for the caretaker leadership, the appellate court held that the disputed congresses were conducted despite an existing court order and were therefore liable to be nullified. The court consequently upheld the injunction preventing INEC from recognizing the congresses and awarded ₦10 million in costs against the appellants. Justice Abba Mohammed dissented. In his minority opinion, he argued that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute remained an internal party affair and that the aggrieved officials had failed to exhaust the ADC’s internal dispute-resolution mechanisms before approaching the courts. He further questioned whether the restraining order had been effectively communicated before the disputed congresses took place.
The legal disagreement is significant. The political consequences may be even greater. For months, the ADC has sought to reinvent itself from a relatively modest political party into the institutional vehicle for Nigeria’s fragmented opposition. The emergence of Senator David Mark as caretaker chairman, alongside former Osun State governor Rauf Aregbesola as national secretary, was widely interpreted as an attempt to provide respected national figures capable of unifying opposition politicians across regional and ideological lines. That strategy depended not merely upon personalities but upon organizational legitimacy.
Political parties contest elections through structures rather than slogans. State executives organize primaries, mobilise supporters, coordinate campaigns and provide the machinery through which candidates emerge. A judicial ruling placing the legality of those structures in doubt inevitably complicates preparations for what promises to be Nigeria’s most competitive electoral cycle since 2023. The decision also highlights a recurring paradox within Nigerian party politics. Political parties frequently champion constitutionalism in national affairs while displaying considerably less enthusiasm for observing their own constitutions. Courts have increasingly shown a willingness to intervene where internal party rules are disregarded, particularly when the rights of elected officials are affected.
The ADC now faces difficult choices. It may seek further relief before the Supreme Court, attempt to regularize its state structures through fresh processes consistent with the party constitution, or pursue political settlements with the aggrieved state chairmen. None of these options is cost-free. Litigation consumes time. Internal reconciliation requires compromise. Organizational uncertainty discourages potential defectors and complicates campaign planning. For the broader opposition coalition, the ruling introduces fresh uncertainty into an already delicate project. Coalition politics depends upon presenting voters with an image of competence, unity and readiness for government. Protracted internal legal disputes risk projecting precisely the opposite impression.
For the ruling APC, the judgment may ease immediate political pressure by forcing its principal challengers to devote attention and resources to internal organizational questions rather than nationwide mobilization. Yet governing parties would be unwise to assume that opposition disarray automatically guarantees electoral success. Nigerian politics has repeatedly demonstrated its capacity for rapid realignment as elections approach. Ultimately, the appellate court has done something courts are constitutionally obliged to do: remind political parties that their constitutions are not decorative documents but binding rules. Whether the decision proves merely a temporary procedural setback or a more enduring obstacle to opposition unity will depend less upon judicial reasoning than upon the ADC’s ability to rebuild consensus within its own ranks.
With less than two years before the 2027 elections, organizational discipline may prove as valuable a political asset as electoral popularity. In Nigeria’s increasingly competitive democracy, parties hoping to govern the country must first demonstrate that they can govern themselves.
