Alex Enumah in Abuja
The Court of Appeal in a split decision of two-to-one, affirmed the judgement of a Federal High Court which restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any state congresses organised by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
The appellate court in the majority decision delivered by Justice Okon Abang and supported by Justice Donatus Okorowo, affirmed the verdict of Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja, shortly after dismissing the appeal against her judgement for lacking in merit.
Recall that Justice Abdulmalik had in a judgement delivered on April 29, restrained INEC from giving recognition to the committee set up by the Mark-led leadership to conduct state congresses of the ADC.
The suit was filed by seven aggrieved state chairmen of the ADC, who had challenged their dissolution and the setting up of a state committee to conduct state congresses of the ADC.
They claimed that the action of the Mark-led leadership robbed them of the statutory powers to conduct congresses of the ADC.
In the judgement delivered on April 29, the trial court held that the Mark-led leadership was wrong to have dissolved the states leadership of the ADC and set up a caretaker committee, for the conduct of the ADC’s congresses.
According to the trial court, the ADC was wrong to have dissolved the states leadership when their tenure has not expired, and by so doing breached its own constitution.
Justice Abdulmalik held that the powers to conduct congresses belong to the state executive whose tenure was still running, adding that a mediation report showed that the tenure of the state executive were in 2023 extended by another four years.
Miffed by the decision of the trial court, the ADC, Mark, National Secretary, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, National Publicity Secretary had approached the appellate court to challenge the decision of the trial court.
They claimed among others that the trial court erred when it assumed jurisdiction over a matter that falls within the internal affairs of the ADC.
They also claimed that while the respondents in the suit lacked merit to institute the legal action, for the fact that they did not exhaust the internal mechanism of the ADC for resolving party issues robbed the court of necessary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
However, the appellate court in its majority decision held that it found no reason to deviate from the judgement of the trial court.
Abang who read the majority judgement pointed out that the case of the appellants was similar to the PDP case which the apex court has already resolved, adding that the dissolution breached the ADC’s Constitution.
Abang stressed that “where an appellant violated its Constitution, the action transcend internal affairs” and the shield of internal affairs shattered.
While the appellate court also agreed with the trial court that the respondents had locus to initiate the suit at the trial court, the majority decision faulted the appellant for not appealing or sought leave to raise a fresh appeal to the extent that the trial court did not resolve the issue of non exhaustion of internal mechanism for resolution of issues.
The majority decision further held that the congresses of the ADC were conducted in violation of a court order and hence bound to be set aside and nullified.
He subsequently affirmed the judgement of Justice Abdulmalik restraining INEC from giving recognition to the state congresses conducted by the Senator David Mark led leadership of the ADC.
Abang also awarded cost of N10 million in favour of the seven respondents (state chairman).
However, Justice Abba Mohammed who delivered the minority judgement affirmed the appeal, noting that the trial court erred in law when it assumed jurisdiction in a suit that falls within the internal affairs of the ADC.
The minority judgement further faulted the trial court for clothing the respondents with locus when by the originating summons as filed by the respondents themselves showed only the 1st respondent as a state chairman.
On the issue of non-exhuastion of mechanism for resolution of dispute, Mohammed held that nothing before the trial court proved that the respondents exploited the tool before approaching the court to challenge their dissolution, adding that failure to do so robs the court of jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Justice Mohammed further held that nothing before the court showed that the appellants violated the order against its convention held on April 14, 2016.
“There is nothing to show that the restraining order was brought to the knowledge of the appellants”, Mohammed stated, “as at the time the order was made it has already held its convention”.
Mohammed explained that a party cannot be held in disobedience of Court when the act has already been done.