The meeting, disclosed by Atiku’s Special Adviser, Eta Uso, in a post on X, was accompanied by a video showing both politicians in the company of other coalition stakeholders.
Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and ex-Rivers State Governor Rotimi Amaechi on Wednesday held a strategic meeting as part of moves to strengthen the African Democratic Congress (ADC) coalition ahead of looming political confrontations.
The meeting, disclosed by Atiku’s Special Adviser, Eta Uso, in a post on X, was accompanied by a video showing both politicians in the company of other coalition stakeholders.
According to Uso, the discussions centred on unity within the ADC coalition and the determination of its members to push back against what they described as impunity by the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).
“H.E. Atiku Abubakar has just concluded a strategic meeting with former Rivers State Governor, Rotimi Amaechi. The ADC coalition remains united and resolute,” Uso said.
“The alignment is firm, and our collective commitment to defending democracy is unwavering. The impunity of the APC-led federal government will be confronted decisively and lawfully, and it will not stand.”
The meeting comes amid deepening internal crisis within the ADC, following a Federal High Court ruling in Abuja restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising congresses conducted by a disputed caretaker leadership of the party.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, in her judgment, also barred former Senate President David Mark and other key figures from interfering with the tenure of duly elected state executives, affirming that only constitutionally recognised party structures can organise congresses.
The suit was filed by Norman Obinna and six others, representing state chairpersons and executive committees of the party, who challenged the legality of actions taken by an interim national leadership, particularly its move to conduct state congresses through an appointed committee.
The plaintiffs argued that the caretaker body lacked the constitutional authority to organise congresses or appoint committees for that purpose, insisting that only duly elected party organs recognised under the party’s constitution could carry out such functions.
They urged the court to affirm the tenure of existing state executive committees and halt any parallel processes capable of undermining their authority.
In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik held that the claims were valid and warranted judicial intervention, stating that she found “the issue in the originating summons meritorious.”
She framed the central question as whether the defendants, including Mark, had the constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of elected state organs whose tenure is guaranteed under the party’s constitution.
Relying on Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 23 of the ADC Constitution, the judge emphasised that political parties must conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles, with party officers serving defined terms.
According to her, “the question is whether there is any infraction committed by Mr Mark and co-defendants when they convened meetings and appointed a body known as a congress committee to organise state congresses.”
Addressing the defence that the matter was purely an internal party affair beyond the court’s jurisdiction, the judge clarified the limits of that principle.
“The law is settled that courts will not interfere. However, where there is an allegation of breach of constitutional or statutory provisions, the court has a duty to intervene,” she ruled.
“Where a party alleges that its constitution has been violated, the court is bound to adjudicate. Any argument that this court lacks jurisdiction on that basis fails,” she added.
Justice Abdulmalik stressed that political parties must operate strictly within their constitutions, noting that deviations, especially in leadership matters, cannot be justified under the guise of internal autonomy.
She held that the procedure adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of a “congress committee,” was not recognised by the ADC constitution and was therefore invalid.
Consequently, the court affirmed that the tenure of the state executive committees remains valid and must run its full course without interference, ruling that only elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses.
In a series of far-reaching orders, the court set aside the appointment of the congress committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress organised by it.
