A High Court sitting in Abuja has issued a decisive order directing African Democratic Congress (ADC), and all parties in leadership crisis to maintain the status quo pending the determination of a substantive suit.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/58/2026, lists Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick as plaintiffs, suing for themselves and on behalf of all State Chairmen and State Executive Committees of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

Listed as defendants in the matter are the African Democratic Congress (ADC); Sen. David Mark; Sen. Patricia Akwashiki; Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi; Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola; H.E. Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor, who is also sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee; and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

In an originating summons filed before the court, the plaintiffs are seeking judicial interpretation of constitutional provisions guiding the tenure and powers of party organs, particularly in relation to the ongoing controversy surrounding the party’s leadership and planned state congresses.

At the heart of the dispute is whether the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committee and State Executive Committee remains valid and subsisting, pending the conduct of a properly constituted State Congress and the convocation of a National Convention.

The plaintiffs anchored their argument on Section 223 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), as well as Article 17 of the party’s constitution and a Final Mediation Report dated December 23, 2023.

The plaintiffs are also contesting the legality of actions taken by a body described as the “Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee,” which they claim is not constitutionally recognized within the framework of the party.

Specifically, they are asking the court to determine whether such a body has the authority to appoint Congress Committee Members for the purpose of conducting state congresses.

In addition, the suit challenges the validity of any appointments made by the caretaker body, describing them as unconstitutional, null, and void. The plaintiffs further contend that the planned state congress slated for April 2026, if conducted under the supervision of the said caretaker committee, would constitute a gross violation of the party’s constitution.

In the ruling delivered on Tuesday, Justice J. O. Abdulmalik ordered that all parties in the suit must refrain from taking any steps capable of undermining the proceedings before the court.

 The directive effectively halts any parallel actions or decisions that could escalate the internal dispute within the party.

The court further directed all parties to file their consequential processes ahead of the next adjourned date, stressing that all pending applications would be consolidated and heard alongside the substantive suit.

According to the certified true copy of the order sighted by the Guardian, the court held the matter will be determined based on affidavit evidence already before the court.

Justice Abdulmalik also mandated that hearing notices be served on the 1st to 5th defendants to ensure their participation in the proceedings.

The case, which has drawn significant political attention, revolves around a leadership tussle within the ADC, particularly over the legality of actions taken by a caretaker or interim national working committee and the conduct of planned state congresses.

Plaintiffs in the suit are seeking judicial declarations affirming the subsistence of their tenure and challenging the authority of the interim leadership to organize congresses or appoint committees.

They are also asking the court to restrain the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognizing or participating in any congresses not conducted under their authority.

The court subsequently adjourned the matter to April 23, 2026, for definite hearing.