By Ndukwe Edward
A group describing itself as the Concerned and Recognised Local Government Executives of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) in Lagos State has rejected a recent statement attributed to the party’s Lagos State chapter on the status of its local government executives, insisting that the dispute must be resolved through the party’s constitution, documentary evidence and applicable court orders.
The rebuttal, signed by Anaere Ugochukwu on behalf of the group, faulted the Lagos State chapter’s position on the status of the LGA executives and challenged the party leadership to produce documents establishing the legal basis for the purported replacement of the affected officers.
At the centre of the dispute is the status of the existing local government structures following the ADC’s national leadership crisis and subsequent moves to establish new structures at state and local government levels.
The group argued that the issue could not be settled through press statements or political assertions, particularly in view of ongoing litigation involving the party’s elected state executive structures.
According to the group, the key question is whether a later administrative arrangement can lawfully terminate the tenure or functions of party executives where judicial orders protecting those structures remain in force.
The rebuttal referred particularly to Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, in which the Federal High Court in Abuja ruled on April 29, 2026, that the tenure of the ADC’s elected State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid and subsisting pending properly constituted congresses and a national convention.
The court also restrained the David Mark-led caretaker leadership from interfering with the tenure and functions of the elected state executives, according to reports of the judgment.
The matter subsequently went before the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which, in a 2-1 majority judgment delivered on July 13, 2026, upheld the Federal High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026.
The appellate court affirmed the restraint against the Mark-led leadership interfering with the tenure and functions of the elected state executives and also upheld the restriction on INEC recognising or participating in state congresses organised by committees appointed by the caretaker leadership.
The Lagos executives, in their response, said the legal implications of those decisions could not be ignored when determining the legitimacy of subsequent party structures.
They specifically questioned the reliance placed on an alleged May 30, 2026 resolution of the ADC National Executive Committee (NEC), arguing that the existence of a NEC resolution did not, by itself, establish that the organ possessed the constitutional authority to terminate existing structures or override judicial orders.
The group challenged the Lagos leadership to produce the certified NEC resolution, identify the relevant provisions of the ADC Constitution empowering the action and explain how the resolution was capable of superseding the existing court orders.
Executives demand evidence on ‘acting’ status
The group also rejected the description of the affected LGA executives as merely “acting” chairmen whose appointments had expired.
It asked the Lagos leadership to produce the appointment letters, terms and conditions, expiration dates and instruments of removal of the affected officers, as well as the constitutional provisions relied upon in terminating their appointments.
It similarly demanded documentary evidence supporting the alleged 2022 LGA congresses, including congress notices, delegate lists, accreditation records, reports, results, minutes and recognition documents.
The group said the same standard of documentary proof should apply to those claiming to have established new LGA structures.
It therefore requested the appointment letters of the new LGA management committees, the identity of the appointing authority, the constitutional provisions relied upon, minutes and resolutions authorising the appointments, ratification documents and evidence showing how the previous structures were lawfully dissolved or replaced.
‘Harmonisation’ meetings questioned
The group further challenged the reliance on what it described as “harmonisation” meetings allegedly held in some LGAs.
It questioned whether the ADC Constitution gives an Annual General Meeting or similar gathering the authority to terminate the tenure of an existing executive committee and replace it with another structure.
According to the rebuttal, the description of a meeting as a “harmonisation meeting” cannot, by itself, confer constitutional powers on the meeting.
The group also argued that changing the name of a replacement structure to a “management committee”, “caretaker committee”, “harmonisation committee” or “transition committee” would not automatically determine its legal status.
Court ruling remains central to dispute
The executives described the Lagos chapter’s treatment of the court orders as one of the most contentious aspects of its statement.
They argued that the proper issue was not which faction could produce a court order first but what the order actually provided, the parties bound by it and whether it had been stayed, discharged, varied or set aside.
The Court of Appeal’s July judgment, as reported by several Nigerian media organisations, upheld the lower court’s restraints and held that the authority to conduct state congresses rested with elected state executive committees rather than the caretaker national leadership.
The appellate court was, however, divided, with Justice Abba Mohammed dissenting and holding that the matter concerned the internal affairs of a political party and should not have been entertained by the lower court.
The group therefore maintained that the dispute should not be reduced to the claim that the party’s NEC had simply taken a decision which automatically settled the matter.
Warning against disciplinary action
The Lagos executives also criticised the reported threat of disciplinary action against members who continue to challenge the new arrangements.
They argued that disciplinary procedures should not be used to silence members raising legitimate questions about the constitutionality of party decisions, stressing that any disciplinary process must itself comply with the party’s constitution and principles of fair hearing.
The group said a call for unity should not amount to a demand for silence, insisting that unity within a democratic political party should be founded on transparency, credible congresses, due process, respect for elected structures and compliance with court orders.
Documents demanded
Among the documents the group asked the Lagos State leadership to make public are the complete May 30, 2026 NEC resolution; relevant provisions of the ADC Constitution; appointment records of the affected LGA executives; records of the alleged 2022 LGA congresses; records of the alleged harmonisation meetings; appointment instruments for the new LGA management committees; and complete court orders relied upon by the various sides.
It also called for evidence showing whether any relevant court order had been stayed, discharged, varied or set aside.
The group said the requested documents would enable party members, INEC and the public to properly assess competing claims concerning the legitimacy of the disputed structures.
It maintained that the descriptions “former”, “acting” or “expired” could not, by themselves, establish the legal status of the affected executives.
“Labels are not evidence. Press releases are not court orders,” the group stated, arguing that the way forward was for the contending sides to produce the relevant constitutional and legal documents rather than continue with competing public statements.
The group concluded by calling for greater transparency and adherence to the rule of law, saying the ADC belongs to its members and that its internal disputes should be resolved through democratic and constitutional processes.
