By Dr. Alex Ter Adum
1. INTRODUCTION
We have carefully reviewed the Originating Summons filed by Don Norman Obinna, Yinka Olona, and others challenging the authority of the National Leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) to conduct congresses and convene a National Convention.
This opinion is issued to provide clarity to Party members nationwide and to address concerns arising from the circulation of the said suit.
2. *SUMMARY OF THE SUIT*
The Plaintiffs seek, inter alia:
To restrain the conduct of Ward, Local Government, and State Congresses;
To prevent the convening of the National Convention;
To invalidate actions taken by the National Working Committee (NWC) led by H.E. Sen. David Mark; and
To restrain the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognising any congresses conducted under the authority of the current Party leadership.
In essence, the suit seeks to halt the Party’s democratic and organisational processes nationwide.
3. *LEGAL EVALUATION*
Upon careful examination of the claims and reliefs sought, our considered opinion is as follows:
3.1 *The Suit Concerns Non-Justiciable Internal Party Affairs*
The issues raised relate strictly to:
Internal Party structure and administration;
The authority of Party organs; and
The organisation of congresses and conventions.
These are internal matters of a political party over which Courts are generally reluctant to assume jurisdiction, except where a clear breach of statutory or constitutional provisions is established. No such breach has been credibly disclosed in the supporting affidavit.
3.2 *The Plaintiffs Lack Locus Standi*
The Plaintiffs have failed to establish any legally enforceable right that has been infringed. Their purported representation of “State Chairmen and State Executive Committees” is unsupported by any verifiable mandate. In law, a representative action without clear and demonstrable consent is incompetent.
More critically, some claimants, such as Mr. Yinka Olona (Oyo State), are not elected State Chairmen but Caretaker Committee appointees serving at the pleasure of the NWC. They lack the legal standing to present themselves as elected representatives. This fundamental misrepresentation renders the action fatally defective.
3.3 *The Procedure Adopted is Fundamentally Defective*
The use of Originating Summons is inappropriate in the circumstances. The suit raises substantial and contested questions of fact, including:
The legitimacy and authority of Party organs;
The basis of the caretaker structure; and
Disputes over tenure, control, and administrative authority.
Such issues cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence alone. They require oral and documentary evidence and ought properly to have been commenced by the Writ of Summons. This procedural defect is also fatal.
3.4 *The Reliefs Sought are Overreaching and Impracticable*
The reliefs sought would:
Halt congresses at all levels;
Prevent the holding of a National Convention; and
Disrupt the Party’s participation in the electoral process.
These are sweeping and destabilising remedies unsupported by any sustainable legal foundation. Notably, the tenure of the existing State Working Committees lapses on 26th March 2026. Whether or not congresses are conducted, those tenures expire by operation of law.
Any attempt to falsify the Party to allow SWCs to transmute expired mandates into caretaker arrangements is legally untenable.
By virtue of Section 223(2)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), political parties are under a constitutional obligation to conduct periodic congresses and conventions to elect their executives every four years. The extant SWCs having been elected on 26th March 2022, their tenures must lapse by 26th March 2026. It is therefore inconceivable that the Court can be used to stop the Party from performing a constitutional duty in the absence of injury to anyone.
3.5 *No Reasonable Cause of Action is Disclosed*
The suit discloses no cognisable legal grievance. At best, it reflects internal dissatisfaction by certain subnational actors seeking to prolong their tenure contrary to both Party rules and constitutional limits.
The ADC Constitution does not vest State chapters with autonomous authority over the timing or conduct of congresses, nor does it permit indefinite tenure. Even if it purported to do so, such a provision would be inconsistent with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Authority over congresses and conventions resides in the National Working Committee and the National Executive Committee, not State Working Committees. Accordingly, no reasonable cause of action arises.
3.6 *State Chairmen Participation Undermines the Suit*
It is significant that the State Chairmen, as members of the NEC, actively participated in the inauguration of the H.E. Sen. David Mark-led NWC on 29th July 2025. In doing so, they:
Approved the Coalition ADC;
Fully participated in establishing the new Party structure; and
Endorsed the processes and decisions that underpin the current leadership.
The fact that some of these same State Chairmen are now party to this suit, seeking to challenge the authority of the very structures they once approved, highlights the opportunistic nature of the action and undermines any claim of legal grievance. The principle is that you cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time.
3.7 *The Suit is a Collateral Attack on Established Party Decisions*
The Plaintiffs are selectively challenging certain aspects of Party administration while ignoring others they previously endorsed (cherry picking). This constitutes a collateral attack on decisions of the Party’s governing organs. Courts have consistently held that such selective and inconsistent challenges indicate ulterior motives and are not entertained where there is no demonstrable breach of law or constitutional provision.
3.8 *The Suit is an Abuse of Court Process*
The institution of this action, when critically examined, bears the hallmarks of an abuse of court process. The Plaintiffs are effectively inviting the Court to interfere in the day-to-day administration of the Party without demonstrating any justiciable injury or legal right deserving of protection.
Courts have consistently frowned upon actions that are speculative, strategic, or designed to obstruct lawful processes. The timing of this suit, on the eve of the expiration of the tenure of existing State Working Committees, strongly suggests a calculated attempt to use the Court as a shield against the natural consequences of constitutional timelines.
4. *CONCLUSION*
On a proper consideration of the law and facts:
(I) The suit is incompetent and devoid of legal merit;
(II) The Court is unlikely to assume jurisdiction, particularly upon a preliminary objection;
(III) The Plaintiffs lack the requisite locus standi;
(IV) The action is both procedurally defective and substantively unsustainable; and
(V) The suit constitutes a collateral attack on established Party decisions and an abuse of the Court process.
5. *ADVISORY TO PARTY MEMBERS*
In light of the foregoing, all members of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) are advised to:
(I) Disregard the suit, as it poses no credible legal threat to the Party;
(II) Remain calm and focused on Party activities nationwide;
(III) Continue active participation in all scheduled congresses and processes; and
(IV) Resist misinformation and speculative narratives surrounding the suit.
6. *FINAL REMARK*
The law is settled that internal political disagreements should not be weaponised into judicial disruptions. This suit is a textbook example of such an attempt, and it is highly unlikely to succeed.
Members are therefore encouraged to remain confident, united, and committed to the Party’s lawful progression.
_The night may be long, but dawn is near._
*Alex Ter Adum, Ph.D*
alexadum45@gmail.com
