*INEC DELISTING OF ADC LEADERSHIP IS LEGALLY WRONGFUL
Festus Ogun, Esq
1. Yesterday, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) said it will no longer accept correspondences from either faction of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) led by David Mark or Rafiu Bala, following its review of the March 12 court of appeal judgement. INEC also removed David Mark-led National Working Committee (NWC) of ADC in alleged compliance with the Court of Appeal’s directive to maintain “status quo ante bellum” pending the determination of the Suit at the Federal High Court (FHC). The calculated decision of INEC to leave ADC in a state of disarray by removing its entire leadership, under the guise of maintaining status quo, is wrongful, undemocratic and unconstitutional.
2. To start with, the position of the law is that our courts generally lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate on issues of leadership or membership of a political party. In ANYANWU v. EMMANUEL & ORS (2025) LPELR-80882(SC), the Supreme Court held that the issue of leadership and/or membership of a political party is an internal or domestic affair of a party and the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it. The Apex Court said that it is within the political party’s jurisdiction and is indeed a no-go-area for Courts, as they lack jurisdiction to delve into such affairs or matters.
3. This position of law on this point is settled beyond peradventure. To complement the judicial attitude of declining jurisdiction over intra-party dispute, Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 (the Act) expressly states that “no Court in Nigeria shall entertain jurisdiction over any suit or matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party”. As a matter of fact, Section 83(6) of the Act prohibits court from granting interim or interlocutory orders in such cases. Yet, interlocutory court orders are being weaponized to destabilize ADC opposition leadership despite the courts lacking jurisdiction on the question of the party’s leadership and membership.
4. That said, we maintain that INEC’s interpretation of the court of appeal order is misconceived and patently mischievous. The intermediate court directed parties to “maintain status quo ante bellum” pending the determination of Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025 filed by Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe against ADC & 4 Ors at the Federal High Court, Abuja. So, it begs the question: how did that extend to removing the names of David Mark-led leadership? What exactly is the status quo in this instance?
5. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has offered answers to this poser. In AYORINDE V. A.-G., OYO STATE (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 434) 20 (Pp.34-35), the Supreme Court held that “maintenance of the status quo must mean maintaining the situation as it existed at the time of filing the action”. Without doubt, the maintenance of status quo in this case obviously means that the state of things before the filing of the action must be maintained. What was the state of things when Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe filed the Suit on September 2 2025? Simply, at the material time when the Suit was filed at the FHC, the David Mark-led team had taken over the leadership of ADC. So, the status quo preserves and protects the David Mark leadership, since the parties’ questions of leadership (which is not justiciable) before the FHC is yet to be decided, anyway.
6. We insist that the Order of the Court of Appeal was not and could not have meant creating a leadership vacuum in ADC. As we have unrepentantly posited, both factions in ADC, their lawyers, INEC, the Federal High Court and indeed the Court of Appeal know verily that leadership and membership disputes of a political party like ADC are not matters within the jurisdiction of the courts.
7. The mischievous mischaracterisation of the Court of Appeal status quo order has set a perilous precedent that must be urgently corrected by INEC. In the long run, what this would mean is that politician will approach court over leadership dispute and somehow find a way to make court direct maintenance of status quo over the subject matter of the dispute. With that, INEC will render most political party redundant by leaving them in the cold like a flock of sheep without shepherd.
8. The deliberate misinterpretation of the status quo order presents to Nigeria that INEC might have succumbed to the pressure of the ruling elites and might have turned its back against the mass of our people. The conduct of INEC violates its constitutional duty to conduct free, fair and credible elections and to present a level-playing field to all participant. While the Court of Appeal status quo order was made on March 12 2026, INEC waited till April 1 2026 before it did the unthinkable, barely few days to ADC national conventions. This, in our considered view, puts the neutrality of INEC into question.
9. INEC must not continue to act like an extended arm of the ruling APC. How can the destiny of the strongest opposition party be tied to a lawsuit filed by one member who alleged he is entitled to the Acting Chairmanship position of the party? This is moreso when the David Mark-led NWC of the party emerged from a national executive committee meeting held on July 29, 2025. Intra-party squabbles will always occur and this dangerous precedent set by INEC will further embolden the ruling party to continue destabilizing the opposition through proxies and factional lawsuits. INEC deliberately putting ADC in disarray is too inimical for our tottering democracy.
10. On a final note, we hereby demand that INEC should immediately rescind its arbitrary, mischievous and unconstitutional decision. Our democracy will die a natural death if courts continue to entertain intra party disputes and if INEC continues to dance to the tune of the master strategists that tremble at the mention of opposition.
*Festus Ogun is a constitutional lawyer and Managing Partner at FOLEGAL, Lagos. [email protected] 09066324982
