The deepening crisis within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has taken a more contentious turn following the Appeal Court ruling on the party’s leadership dispute and the subsequent decision of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to delist the faction led by David Mark. At the center of the unfolding drama is a critical question: does the decision by the David Mark-led faction to proceed with its scheduled convention amount to self-help?
This question is not merely academic. It strikes at the very heart of Nigeria’s constitutional democracy, where the supremacy of the rule of law is expected to guide political conduct, especially in moments of intra-party conflict. In legal parlance, “self-help” refers to actions taken by a party to enforce its perceived rights without recourse to, or in defiance of, established judicial processes. It is a doctrine consistently frowned upon by Nigerian courts, which have repeatedly held that parties must not take unilateral steps capable of undermining pending judicial proceedings or existing court orders.
Against this backdrop, the decision to proceed with a convention after an Appeal Court ruling, particularly one that has informed INEC’s withdrawal of recognition, raises serious concerns. Even where the judgment does not expressly restrain the faction from acting, the combined effect of judicial pronouncement and regulatory response creates a legal environment that demands caution, not defiance.
By going ahead with the convention, the David Mark-led faction risks creating what legal experts often describe as “facts on the ground”, a situation where actions are taken in anticipation of eventual validation, regardless of current legal constraints. Such a move may be interpreted as an attempt to sidestep due process and impose legitimacy outside the framework of the law.
More importantly, the practical implications of such a convention cannot be ignored. In Nigeria’s electoral system, legitimacy is not merely self-proclaimed; it is conferred through recognition by INEC and, ultimately, by the courts. A convention whose outcome lacks regulatory acknowledgment may produce leadership structures that are, in effect, politically symbolic but legally impotent. This not only deepens the internal crisis but also jeopardizes the party’s readiness for future electoral contests, particularly the high-stakes 2027 general elections.
However, it is important to acknowledge the nuance in this situation. Political actors often operate under intense pressure to maintain relevance and demonstrate control. For the David Mark faction, the convention may be seen as a strategic move to consolidate support and signal organizational strength. Yet, such political calculations must be balanced against the overriding need to preserve legal legitimacy.
The more prudent course of action lies not in unilateral steps, but in institutional engagement. The faction would be better served by returning to the courts to seek clarity, whether through an appeal to the Supreme Court or an application for a stay of execution. Such legal remedies provide a structured pathway to resolving disputes without undermining the authority of the judiciary.
Equally important is the need for internal reconciliation within ADC. Prolonged factional battles rarely produce winners; instead, they weaken party structures and erode public confidence. A negotiated settlement, possibly culminating in a unity convention acceptable to all sides, may offer a more sustainable solution than parallel exercises in legitimacy.
Engagement with INEC must also remain a priority. As the statutory regulator of political parties, its recognition is indispensable. Any political process that operates outside its framework risks irrelevance in the electoral arena.
Ultimately, the ADC crisis serves as a reminder of a fundamental principle: democracy is sustained not just by participation, but by adherence to rules. Political ambition, no matter how compelling, must operate within the boundaries set by law.
In the final analysis, proceeding with the convention under the current circumstances leans dangerously toward self-help. It is a path fraught with legal uncertainty and political risk. For the David Mark-led faction, the challenge is clear; choose the slower, often frustrating route of legal resolution and institutional compliance, or risk deepening a crisis that could diminish the party’s prospects in 2027.
In a democracy governed by law, legitimacy cannot be forced; it must be earned, recognized and sustained through due process.
Sir Churchill E. Ajusah (KSJI), is a Political and Public Affairs Analyst
ADC Crisis: Between Judicial Authority and Political Expediency – By Churchill Ajusah
The deepening crisis within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has taken a more contentious turn following the Appeal Court ruling on the party’s leadership dispute and the subsequent decision of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to delist the faction led by David Mark. At the center of the unfolding drama is a critical question: does the decision by the David Mark-led faction to proceed with its scheduled convention amount to self-help?
This question is not merely academic. It strikes at the very heart of Nigeria’s constitutional democracy, where the supremacy of the rule of law is expected to guide political conduct, especially in moments of intra-party conflict.
In legal parlance, “self-help” refers to actions taken by a party to enforce its perceived rights without recourse to, or in defiance of, established judicial processes. It is a doctrine consistently frowned upon by Nigerian courts, which have repeatedly held that parties must not take unilateral steps capable of undermining pending judicial proceedings or existing court orders.
Against this backdrop, the decision to proceed with a convention after an Appeal Court ruling, particularly one that has informed INEC’s withdrawal of recognition, raises serious concerns. Even where the judgment does not expressly restrain the faction from acting, the combined effect of judicial pronouncement and regulatory response creates a legal environment that demands caution, not defiance.
By going ahead with the convention, the David Mark-led faction risks creating what legal experts often describe as “facts on the ground”, a situation where actions are taken in anticipation of eventual validation, regardless of current legal constraints. Such a move may be interpreted as an attempt to sidestep due process and impose legitimacy outside the framework of the law.
More importantly, the practical implications of such a convention cannot be ignored. In Nigeria’s electoral system, legitimacy is not merely self-proclaimed; it is conferred through recognition by INEC and, ultimately, by the courts. A convention whose outcome lacks regulatory acknowledgment may produce leadership structures that are, in effect, politically symbolic but legally impotent. This not only deepens the internal crisis but also jeopardizes the party’s readiness for future electoral contests, particularly the high-stakes 2027 general elections.
However, it is important to acknowledge the nuance in this situation. Political actors often operate under intense pressure to maintain relevance and demonstrate control. For the David Mark faction, the convention may be seen as a strategic move to consolidate support and signal organizational strength. Yet, such political calculations must be balanced against the overriding need to preserve legal legitimacy.
The more prudent course of action lies not in unilateral steps, but in institutional engagement. The faction would be better served by returning to the courts to seek clarity, whether through an appeal to the Supreme Court or an application for a stay of execution. Such legal remedies provide a structured pathway to resolving disputes without undermining the authority of the judiciary.
Equally important is the need for internal reconciliation within ADC. Prolonged factional battles rarely produce winners; instead, they weaken party structures and erode public confidence. A negotiated settlement, possibly culminating in a unity convention acceptable to all sides, may offer a more sustainable solution than parallel exercises in legitimacy.
Engagement with INEC must also remain a priority. As the statutory regulator of political parties, its recognition is indispensable. Any political process that operates outside its framework risks irrelevance in the electoral arena.
Ultimately, the ADC crisis serves as a reminder of a fundamental principle: democracy is sustained not just by participation, but by adherence to rules. Political ambition, no matter how compelling, must operate within the boundaries set by law.
In the final analysis, proceeding with the convention under the current circumstances leans dangerously toward self-help. It is a path fraught with legal uncertainty and political risk. For the David Mark-led faction, the challenge is clear; choose the slower, often frustrating route of legal resolution and institutional compliance, or risk deepening a crisis that could diminish the party’s prospects in 2027.
In a democracy governed by law, legitimacy cannot be forced; it must be earned, recognized and sustained through due process.
Sir Churchill E. Ajusah (KSJI), is a Political and Public Affairs Analyst