There is no provision in the Electoral Act that renders unlawful or invalidates the decisions of a political party’s organs—such as the NEC, NWC, or other bodies—on the basis that the “wrong” individual acted as chairman. Consequently, the dispute involving Gombe does not invalidate the African Democratic Congress (ADC) or make its activities unlawful. At its core, the dispute is limited strictly to the question of who is the lawful chairman of the party.
Importantly, this disagreement does not affect the legal existence or functioning of the party itself. A political party is an institution governed by its constitution and the law—not by the identity of a single officeholder. The ADC, therefore, remains fully entitled to continue its normal activities in accordance with its constitution and applicable laws.
To ensure fairness and legal prudence, the party should extend notices of all meetings and activities to both Gombe and Mark without necessarily designating either as chairman. What is essential is that such notices are issued in the name of the appropriate organ of the party, rather than tied to any individual or disputed office.
Furthermore, the party should publicly affirm its commitment to respecting any subsisting court orders. All actions and decisions should be clearly framed as emanating from the relevant institutional bodies of the party, not from any contested leadership position.
The interpretation reportedly adopted by INEC appears, at best, overly rigid. In effect, it risks achieving the very harm the court order seeks to prevent—namely, irreparable damage to the party. If the ADC is prevented from holding its conventions and congresses, it could be rendered incapable of participating in the 2027 general elections. Such paralysis would result in total and irreversible injury to the party.
On the other hand, the concerns of Gombe and INEC—that the party might proceed without recognizing him as chairman—can still be addressed without halting party activities. Should the court ultimately find merit in Gombe’s claims, it retains the authority to nullify any improperly conducted conventions or congresses. As even the INEC Chairman has noted, this could extend, in extreme cases, to nullifying electoral victories. Thus, adequate remedies remain available.
This situation contrasts sharply with the consequences of halting the party’s activities altogether. Preventing ADC from participating in the next general election would inflict total harm, with no meaningful remedy available afterward.
Key Points to Note
- Gombe’s complaint is strictly limited to the issue of party chairmanship.
- Even if his claim succeeds, it does not automatically invalidate actions taken by the party in line with its constitution and the Electoral Act.
- The Electoral Act contains no provision nullifying party activities on the basis of an improperly designated chairman.
- The essence of Gombe’s grievance—his right to participate in party decision-making—can be addressed by ensuring he receives due notice of all activities.
- The court did not order the delisting of ADC by INEC, nor did it direct a freeze on its activities.
- It is not within INEC’s role to speculate or prejudge how the court might respond to the party continuing its lawful, time-sensitive activities.
In conclusion, it would be unreasonable to interpret the court’s order as intending to paralyze the ADC or exclude it from the 2027 general elections. The law supports continuity, not institutional shutdown, especially where remedies remain available.
Published by Chuks Nwachuku
