A major legal setback has hit the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), with the Court of Appeal affirming a judgment that prevents the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising any state congress organised by the party's interim leadership.

The ruling strengthens the authority of elected state executives at a time when the ADC is grappling with an internal leadership battle that could shape its preparations for the 2027 general elections.

In a judgment delivered in Abuja on Monday, the Court of Appeal upheld an earlier decision of the Federal High Court restraining INEC from recognising or participating in state congresses conducted by the ADC leadership headed by former Senate President David Mark.

Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Okon Abang held that the trial court acted correctly in granting the reliefs sought by seven ADC state chairmen.

"The trial court decision to grant the reliefs sought by the 1st to 7th respondents is in order."

The appellate court agreed that the elected state chairmen remain entitled to complete their four-year tenure under the party's constitution.

The suit was instituted by seven state chairmen representing themselves and other state executives, who argued that the interim national leadership lacked constitutional authority to organise state congresses or appoint committees while their elected tenure remained valid.

Earlier, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court ruled that the State Working Committees remain the legitimate party structures responsible for organising congresses and managing party affairs within their respective states.

David Mark and the party's National Secretary, Rauf Aregbesola, challenged that decision, urging the Court of Appeal to overturn it.

However, Justice Donatus Okorowo dismissed the appeal, describing it as lacking merit.

The appellate court further ruled that the dispute was not beyond judicial review, noting that courts can intervene whenever political parties violate their own constitutions.

It also held that the state chairmen were justified in approaching the court because internal dispute-resolution mechanisms could not fairly resolve a conflict involving those already exercising national leadership.

Most major news organisations focused on the legal implications rather than the political consequences.

Channels Television, Premium Times, TheCable, BusinessDay and The Guardian all highlighted that both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal concluded that only elected state executives—not the interim national leadership—can constitutionally organise state congresses. They also stressed that the courts restrained INEC from recognising any congress conducted outside those constitutional provisions.

The Daily Post report goes further by emphasizing the latest appellate ruling and its effect on the ongoing leadership dispute.

Beyond deciding who conducts state congresses, the judgment reinforces an increasingly important principle in Nigerian party politics: political parties are expected to comply with their own constitutions.

The Court of Appeal relied on recent Supreme Court decisions involving similar disputes within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), rejecting the argument that every disagreement inside a political party is immune from judicial scrutiny.

That position could have wider implications for internal democracy across political parties, particularly as preparations for the 2027 elections gather momentum.

The decision also places additional pressure on the ADC leadership to resolve its internal crisis through constitutional processes rather than administrative directives.

Failure to do so could prolong litigation, complicate candidate selection, and weaken the party's organisational stability ahead of crucial electoral activities.

The ruling follows months of legal disputes over the leadership structure of the ADC.

In April, the Federal High Court first restrained INEC from recognising congresses organised by the David Mark-led interim leadership, holding that elected state executives retained constitutional authority until their tenure expires. Monday's judgment effectively affirms that position and strengthens the legal standing of the state executives.

The judgment comes as the ADC continues to position itself as one of the country's opposition platforms ahead of the next general election, making internal cohesion increasingly important.

The immediate effect of the ruling is that INEC cannot recognise any state congress conducted by the interim national leadership in violation of the court's orders.

The bigger challenge, however, is political rather than legal. Unless the party resolves its leadership disagreements through its constitutional framework or further judicial processes, the internal conflict could continue to disrupt preparations for future congresses, conventions and electoral activities.

How the ADC responds in the coming weeks may determine whether it emerges from the dispute as a united opposition party or remains divided by competing claims to legitimacy.