JamzNG Latest News, Gist, Entertainment in Nigeria
*CANCELLATION OF ADC LEADERSHIP BY INEC IS LEGALLY ILLEGAL
Festus Ogun, Esq
1. Yesterday, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) said it will no longer accept correspondence from any faction of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) led by David Mark or Rafiu Bala, following the review of the Court of Appeal ruling on 12 March. INEC also removed the National Working Committee (NWC) of the ADC led by David Mark in purported compliance with the Court of Appeal’s directive to maintain the “status quo ante bellum” pending the decision of the case in the Federal High Court (FHC). INEC’s calculated decision to leave the ADC in a state of disarray by removing its entire leadership, under the guise of maintaining the status quo, is wrong, undemocratic and unconstitutional.
2. To begin with, the position of the law is that our courts generally do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters of leadership or membership of a political party. In the case ANYANWU v. EMMANUEL & ORS (2025) LPELR-80882(SC), the Supreme Court held that the question of leadership and/or membership of a political party is an internal or internal affair of a party and the court has no jurisdiction to deal with it. The Apex Court said that it comes under the jurisdiction of the political party and is indeed a no-go area for the courts, as they have no jurisdiction to delve into such affairs or matters.
3. This jurisprudence position on the point is resolved beyond all expectations. To complement the judicial attitude of declining jurisdiction over internal party disputes, section 83(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 (the Act) expressly states that “no court in Nigeria shall have jurisdiction over any suit or matter relating to the internal affairs of a political party”. In fact, Section 83(6) of the Act prohibits the court from issuing interim or interim orders in such cases. However, interim court orders are being used as a weapon to destabilize the opposition leadership of the ADC, despite the courts having no jurisdiction over the issue of leadership and party membership.
4. Having said this, we believe that INEC’s interpretation of the Court of Appeal order is misunderstood and patently misguided. The Intermediate Court directed the parties to “maintain the status quo ante bellum” pending the decision of Case No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025 filed by Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe v ADC and 4 Ors at the Federal High Court, Abuja. So, it begs the question: How did the names of the leadership led by David Mark come to be removed? What exactly is the status quo here?
5. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has offered answers to this poser. In AYORINDE VA-G., OYO STATE (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 434) 20 (Pp.34-35), the Supreme Court held that “maintenance of the status quo must mean maintenance of the situation as it existed at the time the appeal was filed.” Without a doubt, maintaining the status quo in the present case evidently implies maintaining the state of affairs prior to the filing of the appeal. What was the state of affairs when the Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe filed suit on September 2, 2025? Simply put, by the time the lawsuit was filed with the FHC, the team led by David Mark had assumed leadership of ADC. Thus, the status quo preserves and protects David Mark’s leadership, since the parties’ leadership issues (which are not justifiable) before the FHC have yet to be decided, however.
6. We insist that the Court of Appeal Order did not and could not have meant the creation of a leadership vacuum in the ADC. As we have unrepentantly postulated, both factions of the ADC, their lawyers, INEC, the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal truly know that disputes over the leadership and membership of a political party like ADC are not matters for the courts.
7. The malicious mischaracterization of the Court of Appeal’s status quo order has set a dangerous precedent which must be urgently corrected by INEC. In the long run, this would mean that the politician will go to the court on the leadership dispute and somehow find a way to have the court directly maintain the status quo on the subject of the dispute. With this, INEC will make most political parties redundant, leaving them out in the cold like a flock of sheep without a shepherd.
8. The deliberate misinterpretation of the status quo order presents to Nigeria that INEC may have succumbed to pressure from the ruling elites and may have turned its back on the mass of our people. INEC’s conduct violates its constitutional duty to conduct free, fair and credible elections and to provide a level playing field for all participants. While the status quo order of the Court of Appeal was issued on March 12, 2026, INEC waited until April 1, 2026 before doing the unthinkable, just a few days, for the ADC national conventions. This, in our opinion, calls into question the neutrality of CENI.
9. INEC must not continue to act as an extended arm of the ruling APC. How can the fate of the strongest opposition party be tied to a lawsuit filed by a member who claimed he was entitled to the interim presidency of the party? This is even more so as the David Mark-led NWC of the party emerged from a national executive committee meeting held on July 29, 2025. Intra-party bickering will always occur and this dangerous precedent set by INEC will further encourage the ruling party to continue to destabilize the opposition through proxies and factional lawsuits. INEC deliberately throwing the ADC into disarray is too hostile to our faltering democracy.
10. On a final note, we hereby demand that INEC immediately reverse its arbitrary, malicious and unconstitutional decision. Our democracy will die a natural death if the courts continue to deal with intra-party disputes and if INEC continues to dance to the tune of master strategists who tremble at the mention of the opposition.
* Festus Ogun is a Constitutional Lawyer and Managing Partner at FOLEGAL, Lagos. [email protected] 09066324982
