The ongoing leadership crisis within the African Democratic Congress (ADC), particularly the legal battle initiated by the faction led by former Senate President David Mark against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
This starkly illustrates the very concerns raised by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) regarding judicial interference in political party affairs ahead of the 2027 General Elections.
Just days after the NBA, through its President Mazi Afam Osigwe, issued a stern warning against the subversion of the Electoral Act 2026, the ADC’s internal wrangling has landed squarely in courts, presenting a direct challenge to the principles the NBA seeks to uphold.
The ADC’s Internal Strife and Judicial Intervention
The crisis within the ADC intensified when INEC withdrew its recognition of the David Markled National Working Committee (NWC), citing a court ruling that mandated parties to maintain a
status quo ante bellum.
In response, the Mark-led faction has approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking a mandatory injunction to reverse INEC’s decision and restore
their recognition.
They are also asking the court to direct INEC to monitor their congresses and conventions and to maintain the names of their NWC members on its official portal.
This move by the ADC faction directly contravenes the spirit, if not the letter, of Section 83 of the Electoral Act 2026, which the NBA has vehemently defended.
Section 83 explicitly bars courts from entertaining jurisdiction over matters pertaining to the internal affairs of
political parties and prohibits the granting of interim or interlocutory injunctions in such cases.
The NBA’s statement highlighted that lawyers who institute such actions and
courts that grant such orders are acting in “clear contempt of statutory provisions of the law” and are engaging in practices that “do violence to them”.
NBA’s Warning in Context
The NBA’s recent statement, issued by President Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN has specifically deprecated the “disturbing involvement by lawyers and courts in the internal affairs of political parties.”
It warned against “disingenuous litigation, forum shopping, and malafide
applications designed to secure undemocratic political advantage,” which risk transforming judicial processes into avenues for political score-settling or electoral manipulation.
The ADC leadership tussle, with its multiple factions and recourse to the courts over internal party recognition and congresses, appears to be a live manifestation of the very scenario
the NBA cautioned against.Implications for Nigeria’s Democracy
The NBA has pledged to take firm disciplinary action against lawyers who deliberately file actions aimed at procuring judicial interference in intra-party affairs.
It has also called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to sanction judges who knowingly assume jurisdiction in matters clearly barred by law or grant orders in violation of statutory provisions.
The ADC case will undoubtedly serve as a critical test of the NBA’s resolve and the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the Electoral Act 2026.Furthermore, the NBA urged INEC to exercise its supervisory powers with “utmost neutrality, independence, and fidelity to democratic values.”
INEC’s decision to withdraw recognition from the Mark-led ADC faction, while ostensibly based on a court ruling, has
itself become a subject of judicial challenge, further entangling electoral body in the internal disputes of a political party.
This situation underscores the NBA’s concern that INEC must not be perceived as a participant in political engineering or as an institution whose regulatory authority weakens political pluralism.Conclusion
The ADC leadership crisis, now before the courts, is a poignant example of the challenges facing Nigeria’s democratic process as the 2027 elections draw near.
It highlighted the delicate balance between internal party autonomy, judicial oversight, and the regulatory role of INEC.
The NBA’s timely intervention serves as a crucial reminder to all stakeholders ‒ lawyers, judges, and electoral bodies ‒ of their responsibility to uphold the rule of law and prevent the judiciary from being misused as an instrument of political advantage.
