Court Bars APC and INEC From Enforcing Resolution Against Cross River APC Chairman
The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, has restrained the All Progressives Congress (APC), the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and other defendants from enforcing a resolution alleged to have been designed to remove or undermine the authority of the Cross River State Chairman of the APC, Hon. Alphonsus Ogar Eba. The interim order was granted by Justice J. E. Obanor on December 18, 2025, while sitting at Court 26 in Jabi, Abuja.
The ruling followed an ex parte motion filed by Hon. Eba, who approached the court seeking protection against what he described as an unlawful resolution dated November 26, 2025. According to the claimant, the resolution was intended to prevent him from performing his duties as the duly elected chairman of the APC in Cross River State before the expiration of his tenure.
The suit, marked FCT/HC/CV/5197/2025, was instituted against the APC, Mr. Ekum Ekok Ojogu, Mr. Patrick Asikpo Okon, and INEC. The claimant was represented by his counsel, Ayotunde Ogunleye (SAN), who urged the court to intervene to prevent actions that could prejudice his client’s position pending the hearing of a substantive motion.
In granting the application, Justice Obanor restrained the defendants, whether acting individually or through agents, privies, or representatives, from giving effect to or continuing to give effect to the disputed resolution. The court specifically barred any action that would prevent Hon. Eba from carrying out his responsibilities as the Cross River State Chairman of the APC pending the determination of the motion on notice.
Related News
Henry Seriake Dickson Defects from PDP to Newly Formed Nigeria Democratic Congress
Senator Henry Seriake Dickson has formally defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the newly registered Nigeria Democratic Congress…
Hon. Sarah Ivie Adidi Receives “Her Excellence Award” During International Women’s Day Event in Abuja
Reps aspirant Sarah Ivie Adidi has been honoured with the 2026 “Her Excellence Award” during an event marking International Women’s…
Governor Peter Mbah Urges Ndigbo to Return to Strategic Politics
Peter Mbah, Governor of Enugu State, has urged the Igbo political class to return to what he described as “strategic…
The court also issued an order preventing the defendants from stopping the claimant from attending the National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting of the APC scheduled for Friday, December 19, 2025. Justice Obanor further held that Hon. Eba must be allowed to attend any other party meetings to which he is entitled during the subsistence of his tenure or any extension granted by the party’s NEC.
In a related directive, the court restrained the second defendant, Mr. Ekum Ekok Ojogu, or any other person, from parading himself as the Acting Chairman of the APC in Cross River State while Hon. Eba’s tenure remains valid. The judge also barred the defendants from initiating, deliberating upon, or taking any steps or decisions capable of adversely affecting the claimant’s position or rights as the recognised state chairman of the party.
Justice Obanor noted that, after reviewing the processes placed before the court, there was sufficient justification to grant the interim reliefs sought by the claimant. In his ruling, the judge stated that the orders were necessary to preserve the subject matter of the suit and prevent irreparable damage pending the determination of the substantive motion.
“Having gone through all the processes before the court and being satisfied as to the need to grant the interim orders sought, Motion No. M/16959/2025 is hereby granted, and the orders are made as prayed, pending the determination of the Motion on Notice,” the judge ruled.
The matter has been adjourned to January 22, 2026, for the hearing of the motion on notice. Until then, the court’s orders effectively maintain the status quo within the Cross River State chapter of the APC.
The ruling has attracted attention within political circles, particularly because it was delivered on the eve of a crucial NEC meeting of the ruling party. While supporters of the claimant view the decision as a legal safeguard of due process and internal democracy, others argue that political parties should be allowed to manage their internal affairs without judicial intervention.
As the case proceeds, the court’s final determination is expected to clarify the limits of party authority, the role of INEC in internal party disputes, and the extent to which courts can intervene in leadership conflicts within political parties.