THIS DAWN — Concerned stakeholders and democracy advocates have urged the national leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) to refrain from disrupting existing state executive structures, warning that any unilateral action could undermine the party’s constitution, internal democracy, and public credibility.
The call follows growing internal tensions in several states, where fears have emerged that elected state party executives—particularly State Chairmen—could be removed or replaced without adherence to the procedures laid down in the ADC Constitution.
According to constitutional experts and party observers, the ADC Constitution is explicit on how state leadership is constituted and altered. State Chairmen are elected officers whose mandate derives from a duly convened State Congress, recognised as the highest decision-making body of the party at the state level. As such, their tenure is protected by the constitution, subject only to expiration of tenure or lawful removal through established disciplinary processes.
Legal advisers have pointed out that the constitution does not vest any individual, including the National Chairman, with unilateral powers to remove or replace elected state officers. While national party organs such as the National Working Committee have supervisory and coordinating responsibilities, these powers are expected to be exercised strictly within constitutional limits and without overriding the mandate conferred by state congresses.
The Coalition for Protection of Democracy (COPDEM), an independent pro-democracy group monitoring internal party governance, has cautioned that arbitrary interference with state executive structures could have far-reaching consequences. In a recent advisory, the group warned that such actions risk weakening internal democracy, deepening factional divisions, and exposing the party to avoidable litigation.
“Nigerian courts have consistently held political parties to their constitutions,” a legal source familiar with the matter said. “Where a party disregards its own rules, the courts are unlikely to legitimise such actions, regardless of the political considerations involved.”
Observers note that stability at the state level is particularly critical as political parties prepare for upcoming electoral cycles. Disrupting existing structures, they argue, may distract from grassroots mobilisation, weaken party cohesion, and erode public confidence in the party’s commitment to democratic principles.
Several party insiders have therefore advised the ADC national leadership to prioritise dialogue, constitutional processes, and internal dispute resolution mechanisms rather than abrupt structural changes. Where leadership issues genuinely arise, they insist, the appropriate route remains disciplinary proceedings conducted with fair hearing, or the convening of properly constituted congresses as provided for by the party’s constitution.
As Nigeria’s political space continues to grapple with questions of internal party democracy, analysts say the ADC has an opportunity to distinguish itself by demonstrating respect for constitutionalism and rule-based governance—starting with preserving duly elected state executive structures until lawful processes dictate otherwise.
