Appeal Court Judgement Does Not Affect ADC Primaries – Abdullahi

The African Democratic Congress (ADC), led by Senator David Mark, has declared that the judgment of the Court of Appeal does not affect the outcome of the party’s primary election.

The position was made known in a statement on Monday by the ADC National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi.

In his words, “We wish to assure members of the ADC and the general public that today’s Court of Appeal judgment has no effect whatsoever on the direct primaries through which the ADC’s candidates emerged at all levels.”

He added that the ADC has commenced processes of appealing the judgment, describing the appellate court ruling as legally unsustainable.

NEWSNGR recalls that the Court of Appeal in Abuja has upheld an order restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in state congresses organised by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

In a split decision delivered on Monday, two members of the three-man panel affirmed the April 29 judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja, while one justice dissented.

Justice Okon Abang, who delivered the majority judgment, said the appellate court found no valid reason to overturn the restraining order earlier issued by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik.

The court also affirmed the order preventing the Mark-led national leadership from interfering with the tenure and functions of the ADC’s elected state executive committees.

Justices Abang and Donatus Okorowo formed the majority that barred INEC from recognising the outcome of congresses conducted by the caretaker leadership.

They agreed with the trial court that the responsibility for organising state congresses rested with duly elected state executive committees rather than the party’s national caretaker body.

The presiding justice, Abba Mohammed, however, delivered a dissenting judgment.

Mohammed held that the dispute arose from the internal affairs of a political party and was, therefore, not open to judicial determination.

He consequently ruled that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case.