By Alex Ter Adum, PhD
The Court of Appeal judgment concerning the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has understandably generated concern among party members and candidates. However, a careful examination of the Electoral Act 2022, settled legal principles, and the reported scope of the judgment demonstrates that there is no legal basis for panic or the conclusion that candidates who emerged through valid direct primary elections are at risk of being removed from the ballot solely because of that decision.
The first point is that the Electoral Act clearly distinguishes between party congresses and party primary elections. A state congress is an internal party exercise conducted for the election of party executives. By contrast, primary elections are statutory processes regulated by Section 84 of the Electoral Act for the nomination of candidates for elective offices. These are two separate legal exercises governed by different rules and serving entirely different purposes.
Section 84(1) of the Electoral Act mandates every political party to hold primaries for the nomination of candidates, while Section 84(2) recognizes direct or consensus primaries as lawful methods of nomination. In the case of direct primaries, Section 84(4)(a) provides that all qualified members of the party shall have the opportunity to vote. The sanction prescribed under Section 84(13) applies only where a political party fails to comply with the provisions governing the conduct of its primaries. It does not extend to disputes concerning party congresses or the election of party officials.
From all credible reports available, neither the Federal High Court nor the Court of Appeal declared the ADC direct primary elections invalid. The issue before the courts concerned the authority of the National Caretaker Committee to dissolve State Executive Committees and to appoint committees for the conduct of state congresses. The reported orders restrained the recognition of those congresses. They did not pronounce upon, review or nullify the party’s primary elections for the nomination of candidates.
It is a fundamental principle of law that a court is bound by the issues submitted to it and the reliefs sought by the parties. A court cannot grant reliefs that were neither claimed nor extend its orders to matters that were never placed before it for determination. Consequently, a judgment relating to the validity of state congresses cannot, by implication, invalidate primary elections that were not the subject of the litigation.
Furthermore, where the National Working Committee conducted direct primaries in accordance with the ADC Constitution, gave the statutory notice to INEC, and the primaries substantially complied with Section 84 of the Electoral Act, those nominations stand on their own legal foundation. Their validity cannot be defeated merely because another process relating to the election of party executives is under judicial challenge. Moreover, the affected State Executives that emanated from the disputed Congresses by the resolution of the ADC NEC are not recognised as State Working Committees of the party and had no role to play in the conduct of the primary election for the selection of candidates, hence their disability does not affect the primary elections conducted by the NWC through sorrogate Committees independent of the State Congresses that were nullified by the FHC and upheld by the Court of Appeal yesterday.
It is equally important to note that the substantive dispute over the national leadership of the ADC remains pending before the Federal High Court. Until that court finally determines the merits of the case, and unless a competent court specifically nullifies the party’s primary elections, there is no legal justification for suggesting that candidates validly nominated through those primaries face automatic disqualification or removal from the ballot.
Accordingly, ADC members, aspirants and candidates should remain focused on political mobilisation and preparations for the 2027 general elections rather than be distracted by speculative interpretations of the Court of Appeal judgment. The reported decision is confined to the conduct and recognition of state congresses and should not be construed as a judicial pronouncement against candidates who emerged through lawful direct primary elections conducted in compliance with the Electoral Act and the party’s constitution.
The rule of law demands that judgments be interpreted according to their express terms and not expanded by conjecture. Until a court of competent jurisdiction expressly decides otherwise, ADC candidates validly nominated through direct primaries remain entitled to the full protection of the Electoral Act and to participate in the electoral process.
Alex Ter Adum, PhD
alexadum45@gmail.com
