ADC faults INEC, says status quo order misinterpreted
By
Abdulrahman Zakariyau
The African Democratic Congress has faulted the position of the Independent National Electoral Commission over its interpretation of a Court of Appeal order, describing it as a misrepresentation of the directive to maintain the status quo.
The ADC, in a statement issued on Friday by its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, also accused INEC of overstepping its constitutional mandate.
The party maintained that its internal activities, including congresses and its national convention, remain lawful and protected, insisting that no court order has barred it from proceeding with its scheduled programmes.
On Wednesday, INEC announced that it had delisted prominent ADC National Chairman, David Mark and National Secretary, Rauf Aregbesola, from its records.
The commission, through its National Commissioner and Chairman of the Information and Voter Education Committee, Mohammed Haruna, said the decision was taken in line with a court order directing it to maintain the status quo pending the final determination of the matter at the trial court.
Reacting while addressing a press conference in Abuja on Thursday, Mark reiterated that all party activities, including congresses, would go ahead as scheduled, describing INEC’s action as illegal.
However, INEC Chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan, in an interview on Arise Television on Friday, cautioned the Mark-led faction against proceeding with its planned congresses without official recognition.
He emphasised that all party activities must comply with existing court directives and warned that any actions taken outside due process would not be recognised by the commission.
In its latest response to the INEC Chairman, the ADC described his position as a deliberate misinterpretation of the Court of Appeal’s directive to maintain the status quo, saying it amounts to contempt of court.
In a statement on Friday, the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Abdullahi, accused INEC of exceeding its supervisory role and attempting to obstruct lawful processes, maintaining that internal disputes do not halt democratic activities while reaffirming its resolve to proceed in full compliance with the law.
The statement read,”First, the Chairman’s repeated assertion that INEC is merely acting within the confines of a multi-party constitutional order is, with respect, a deflection from the central issue. The question before Nigerians is not whether Nigeria remains a multi-party state in theory, but whether the actions of INEC in practice are undermining the ability of opposition parties to freely organise and function.
“The ADC has not alleged the abolition of multi-party democracy in form; rather, it has raised concerns about actions that, in effect, weaken it. The Chairman’s reliance on the existence of multiple parties as proof of neutrality does not address the specific conduct under scrutiny.
“On the issue of the Court of Appeal’s order, the Chairman places heavy reliance on the doctrine of status quo ante bellum, suggesting that it requires a rollback to a particular point in time and a suspension of party activities. This interpretation is both selective and legally flawed. The preservation order, by its nature, is intended to prevent actions that would irreversibly alter the subject matter of litigation, not to paralyse the internal functioning of a political party.
“The Chairman’s attempt to define the status quo by tracing the controversy to internal party developments in July 2025 is an administrative interpretation that INEC is not empowered to make. That determination lies strictly within the jurisdiction of the courts, not the commission.”
The ADC further stated that the Chairman’s assertion that conducting congresses or conventions would undermine court proceedings is an overreach.
The party stressed that internal party activities carried out in accordance with its constitution and the Electoral Act do not invalidate or affect ongoing judicial matters.
It added, “On the contrary, democratic continuity within a political party is presumed under the law unless expressly restrained by a competent court. No such explicit order prohibiting congresses or conventions has been cited. What exists are general preservation directives, which cannot be expanded into a blanket prohibition on party governance.
“The assertion that INEC is restrained from monitoring congresses due to an injunction equally exposes a critical misunderstanding of its role. INEC’s duty to monitor is statutory and triggered upon proper notification. A party’s decision to proceed with its internal processes does not depend on INEC’s participation. By conflating its monitoring function with the validity of the processes themselves, INEC effectively places itself above the law, assuming a veto power it does not possess.
“The Chairman also references conflicting communications from different factions within the ADC as justification for inaction. However, the existence of internal disputes does not suspend a political party’s constitutional rights. Indeed, such disputes are commonplace in democratic systems and are routinely resolved without administrative paralysis. INEC’s role is not to arbitrate these disputes or to freeze party activities pending their resolution, but to maintain neutrality and allow due process to run its course.
“On the invocation of precedents such as Zamfara, the comparison is misplaced. Those cases involved clear and established failures to comply with mandatory legal requirements for primaries. In contrast, the ADC has demonstrated its commitment to conducting its processes in strict accordance with its constitution and the Electoral Act. Pre-emptively warning of hypothetical judicial consequences, as the Chairman has done, amounts to speculation and cannot serve as a legal basis to restrict lawful party activities.”
The party maintained that although the Chairman presents INEC’s stance as a precaution against possible future judicial nullification of elections, such reasoning does not justify its current position.
It added, “The ADC reiterates that its right to organise congresses and hold its national convention is constitutionally guaranteed and has not been lawfully suspended by any court. The interpretation advanced by the INEC Chairman stretches judicial directives beyond their meaning and risks setting a dangerous precedent where regulatory caution becomes a tool for democratic suppression.
“The ADC will therefore proceed with its activities in full compliance with the law and urges INEC to confine itself strictly to its constitutional and statutory mandate.”