The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has raised serious concerns over increasing judicial involvement in the internal affairs of political parties, warning that such intervention could undermine Nigeria’s democratic development. South-South Zonal Publicity Secretary of the ADC, Mabel Oboh, made the statement following a recent Court of Appeal judgment that barred the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising state congresses held under the caretaker leadership of Senator David Mark. The ruling has sparked national debate on the appropriate limits of judicial oversight in party governance.
Oboh stressed that while the judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of law, it should not assume administrative control over political parties. She argued that courts should only intervene when there are clear violations of the Constitution, the Electoral Act, or party constitutions, rather than stepping in to manage internal party processes. According to her, allowing the judiciary to become the de facto administrator of political parties risks eroding party autonomy and weakening democratic institutions.
The legal dispute before the Court of Appeal focused on whether the ADC’s caretaker committee had the authority to appoint committees to conduct state congresses. Oboh acknowledged that such questions fall within the jurisdiction of the courts, but emphasized that the broader issue is about maintaining constitutional boundaries. She warned that if left unchecked, similar judicial interventions could affect any political party in Nigeria, not just the ADC.
Citing the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act 2022, Oboh clarified that INEC’s role in party affairs is supervisory, not managerial. She maintained that neither INEC nor the judiciary should be tasked with running the internal operations of political parties. Instead, when party processes are found to be in breach of legal or constitutional provisions, courts should invalidate them and direct fresh, constitutionally compliant exercises.
She referenced landmark Supreme Court decisions including Onuoha v. Okafor (1983), PDP v. Sylva (2012), and APC v. Marafa (2020), which have consistently upheld the principle that courts should not replace democratic party organs. Oboh affirmed her confidence in the judiciary but called for constitutional restraint, noting that public trust in the courts depends on their ability to exercise power within legal limits.
She added that if party officials’ tenure expired on May 12, 2026, as claimed by the plaintiffs, any legal protections tied to that tenure would naturally lapse. Courts can preserve existing rights, but cannot create new tenures where none exist under the party’s constitution. This approach, she said, upholds legality without turning the judiciary into a party administrator.
Oboh concluded by emphasizing that balancing judicial oversight with party autonomy is essential for strengthening the rule of law, protecting internal democracy, and securing Nigeria’s democratic future. The issue, she noted, is not about opposing judicial authority, but about ensuring it is exercised wisely and within constitutional bounds. As Nigeria’s political landscape continues to evolve, this debate will likely shape how parties and institutions interact in the years ahead.
Leave a Comment