The African Democratic Congress (ADC) is pressing ahead with plans for its internal congresses despite unresolved legal questions that could ultimately determine the legitimacy of those very processes—a move legal observers say carries significant risk for the party’s stability ahead of future elections.
The warning comes from a legal practitioner who, in a public statement addressed to the party’s spokesperson, Bolaji Abdullahi, urged the ADC leadership to rethink its approach to an ongoing dispute involving the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the courts. At issue is not only the party’s disagreement with the electoral body, but also how it is responding to judicial directives that may shape its internal structure.
A Dispute Beyond INEC
According to the lawyer, the ADC’s current challenge is more complex than a regulatory disagreement.
“By now, the party should have realised that it’s not fighting INEC only. We are fighting both INEC and the Judiciary,” he said.
That distinction is critical. While political parties in Nigeria frequently clash with INEC over compliance and internal processes, disputes that extend into the judiciary carry higher stakes. Court rulings—particularly those touching on party leadership or congress validity—can invalidate decisions, disqualify candidates, or trigger prolonged internal crises.
Unclear Response to Court Order
The legal expert’s concern centres on what he described as an inadequate response to a recent court order, which was referenced by former Senate President David Mark during a press briefing. According to the lawyer, the party has so far limited its position to disputing the interpretation of that order, without outlining a clear legal pathway forward.
“The only reference… is that the interpretation given to the order is not correct,” he noted.
What remains unclear is how the ADC intends to resolve the ambiguity around the court’s directive—particularly the invocation of “status quo ante bellum,” a legal term that typically requires parties to revert to the situation that existed before a disputed action.
Without a definitive interpretation, any steps taken by the party—including congresses—could later be challenged.
Options on the Table
The lawyer outlined several possible courses of action available to the ADC. These include complying fully with the court order, seeking an accelerated hearing at the Federal High Court, or escalating the matter to higher courts for clarity.
Another option, he suggested, would be to approach the Court of Appeal directly for authoritative interpretation of the ruling.
Each path carries implications. Compliance could stabilise the situation but may require concessions within the party. Appeals, on the other hand, could prolong uncertainty—potentially affecting preparations for future electoral cycles.
Why the Congress Matters
Party congresses are not routine administrative exercises. In Nigeria’s political system, they determine leadership structures, delegate selection and, ultimately, who controls candidate nominations. Any legal defect in the process can have cascading effects, including the nullification of candidates during elections.
For ordinary party members and aspirants, this translates into uncertainty. Investments—both financial and political—made in preparation for primaries or conventions could be lost if courts later invalidate the process.
The ADC’s decision to proceed with its congress schedule despite unresolved legal questions is therefore seen by some analysts as a gamble: it may signal confidence, but also risks deepening internal disputes if outcomes are challenged.
A Pattern in Nigerian Party Politics
Legal battles over party congresses and leadership are not new in Nigeria. From major parties to smaller platforms like the ADC, internal disagreements frequently end up in court, often spilling into election timelines and complicating INEC’s oversight role.
These disputes have, in past election cycles, led to last-minute candidate substitutions, court-ordered reruns of primaries, and, in some cases, outright exclusion from ballots. The judiciary’s increasing involvement has made legal strategy as important as political mobilisation.
What Happens Next
For the ADC, the immediate question is whether it will clarify its legal position before proceeding further with its congresses. Failure to do so could invite fresh litigation—from within the party or from external actors—once outcomes are announced.
Observers will also be watching INEC’s stance. While the commission typically refrains from intervening in internal party matters beyond regulatory compliance, it is bound to recognise only processes that meet legal standards.
The coming weeks will test whether the ADC can balance its political timetable with the demands of legal certainty. For a party seeking relevance in Nigeria’s competitive political landscape, the outcome may determine not just its internal cohesion, but its credibility with voters ahead of the next electoral cycle.
