The ADC Judgment: Law, Democracy and the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Responsibility

By Dr. Pedro Obaseki

Every Republic is eventually tested. Not merely by elections or economic crises, but by moments when its constitutional institutions are called upon to decide questions whose consequences extend far beyond the litigants before them.

Nigeria has arrived at one of those moments.

The recent judgment of the Court of Appeal concerning the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has generated understandable political anxiety and sharply divided legal opinion. According to publicly available reports, the majority held that the David Mark-led caretaker leadership lacked authority under the party’s constitution to conduct the disputed congresses and that those processes were undertaken in defiance of an existing court order. The dissenting Justice reached the opposite conclusion, holding that the dispute was an internal party affair beyond judicial intervention.

The appeal will now proceed to the Supreme Court. That is exactly where it belongs.

Yet, it would be a mistake to see this as merely another political dispute. The issues before the Supreme Court extend beyond one political party. They concern the relationship between the rule of law, democratic choice and the constitutional future of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

BEYOND TODAY’S POLITICS
Much of the public discussion has focused on who benefits politically from the judgment. That is inevitable in a vibrant democracy, but it is not the most important question. The more important question is this: how should constitutional courts interpret the law where the consequences of that interpretation may shape the character of the nation’s democracy for years to come?

Governments change. Political parties rise and fall. Elections come and go. Constitutional precedents endure.

Whatever principles emerge from this appeal will not apply only to the ADC. They will become part of Nigeria’s constitutional architecture, governing future disputes involving every political party, including those not presently before the courts. That is why this appeal deserves to be viewed through the lens of constitutional principle rather than partisan advantage.

THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS MORE THAN PROCEDURE
No serious democrat disputes that political parties must obey their constitutions or that courts have a duty to enforce the law where jurisdiction properly exists. But constitutional adjudication has never been a purely mechanical exercise.

The Constitution is not simply a legal code regulating institutions. It is the framework through which a free people preserve representative government under the rule of law. Every constitutional interpretation must therefore remain faithful not only to legal text but also to constitutional purpose.

The finest constitutional courts have long recognised that where the law reasonably admits competing interpretations, the interpretation that best preserves democratic governance, institutional stability and public confidence deserve careful consideration. That is not an invitation to disregard the law. It is an invitation to interpret the law in a manner that best fulfils the Constitution’s enduring purpose.

COMPETITIVE DEMOCRACY IS A CONSTITUTIONAL VALUE
One principle deserves particular emphasis.

Competitive democracy is not an act of political generosity by those who hold power. It is a constitutional guarantee owed to every Nigerian citizen. Governments derive legitimacy from elections. Elections derive legitimacy from meaningful political choice. Meaningful political choice depends upon the existence of credible political alternatives operating freely within the framework of the Constitution and the law.

This is not an argument for insulating political parties from legal accountability. It is simply a recognition that constitutional remedies should, wherever the law reasonably permits, preserve rather than unnecessarily diminish democratic participation.

That principle protects every political party. More importantly, it protects every Nigerian voter.

THE SUPREME COURT’S RESPONSIBILITY
Every apex court performs two indispensable functions. The first is to resolve the dispute before it according to law. The second is to strengthen the constitutional order within which future disputes will be resolved. This appeal calls for both responsibilities.

The Supreme Court is not being asked to determine who should govern Nigeria. That sovereign decision belongs exclusively to the Nigerian electorate through free and fair elections. The Court is instead being asked to clarify the constitutional relationship between party autonomy, judicial intervention, electoral certainty and democratic participation. Its judgment will shape Nigeria’s constitutional jurisprudence long after the present controversy has passed.

NO CAUSE FOR PANIC
Across the country, candidates, party officials and supporters have understandably become anxious about the implications of the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

Such concern is natural. It is also premature. The Court of Appeal has spoken. The Supreme Court has not. That distinction matters.

Our constitutional system deliberately provides appellate review because difficult constitutional questions often admit more than one reasonable legal answer. The existence of a carefully reasoned dissent in this very case demonstrates that respected jurists have already differed on important questions of principle. That is precisely why the Constitution provides for a final court.

Until that Court has spoken, neither despair nor triumphalism is warranted. Confidence in the constitutional process—not panic—should guide public reaction.

A DEFINING CONSTITUTIONAL MOMENT
History occasionally presents apex courts with cases that transcend the immediate parties before them. This is one of those cases. The Supreme Court’s eventual judgment will not be remembered merely because it involved the African Democratic Congress.

It will be remembered because it required Nigeria’s highest court to define the relationship between legality and democracy at a critical stage in the Republic’s constitutional evolution.
The Court will, as it must, decide according to the Constitution and the law. No one should ask it to do otherwise. But constitutional fidelity requires more than technical precision. It requires an interpretation that preserves public confidence in the democratic order the Constitution was enacted to establish.

If there is one enduring lesson from constitutional history across democratic societies, it is this: the law exists to preserve the Republic; the Republic does not exist to satisfy a mechanical application of the law divorced from its constitutional purpose.

That principle does not weaken the rule of law. It gives the rule of law its democratic legitimacy.

CONCLUSION
This appeal is larger than the fortunes of the ADC. It is larger than any individual politician. Indeed, it is larger than the 2027 elections. It concerns the enduring character of Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.

Long after today’s political arguments have faded, the constitutional principles established in this appeal will remain. They will shape the relationship between political parties, the courts, INEC and, ultimately, the Nigerian voter.

History will therefore judge this case not only by its legal correctness but also by its contribution to the stability and credibility of Nigeria’s democratic order. One trusts that, when the final chapter is written, it will record that Nigeria’s constitutional institutions demonstrated both fidelity to the rule of law and an unwavering commitment to the democratic Republic the Constitution was enacted to preserve.

Because governments are temporary. Political parties are transient. But constitutional precedents—and the Republic they sustain—endure.