JUST IN: “We Can’t Interfere in Party Affairs” – Court Dismisses ADC Leadership Case

A High Court sitting in Dutsin-Ma, Katsina State, has declined to entertain a leadership dispute within the African Democratic Congress (ADC), bringing an abrupt end to a suit filed by a faction of the party in the state.

Justice A.K. Tukur, who presided over the matter, ruled that the court lacks the legal authority to intervene in issues relating to the internal workings of a political party.

The judge based the decision on the provisions of Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act, which clearly restricts courts from meddling in such matters.

The case was brought before the court by Alhaji Musa Usman Wamba, the Katsina State Chairman of the ADC. He had approached the court seeking to restrain some party members and institutions from actions he considered unlawful within the party structure.

Those listed as defendants in the suit include Lawan Batagarawa, Babangida Ibrahim Mahuta, the African Democratic Congress (ADC), and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

Earlier, on April 7, 2026, the court had issued an interim order in favour of the plaintiff. That order was meant to temporarily halt certain actions pending the determination of the case.

However, in the latest ruling, Justice Tukur set aside that interim order in its entirety. The judge made it clear that the court cannot continue to entertain the matter since it falls outside its jurisdiction.

“We can’t interfere in party affairs,” the court held, stressing that disputes of this nature should be resolved internally by the political party.

The ruling effectively ends the legal attempt by the Wamba-led faction to use the court to challenge the actions of the defendants in this matter.

The court went further to declare that the suit is “struck out for want of jurisdiction.” This means the case has not been decided on its merits but has been dismissed because the court does not have the power to hear it.

With this decision, all reliefs earlier sought by the plaintiff in this court have failed. The parties are now left with the option of resolving the dispute through internal party mechanisms or exploring other legal avenues where applicable.