Bolaji Abdullahi@BolajiADC
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has carefully reviewed the recent interview granted by the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Joash Amupitan, and finds it necessary to respond, in order to correct several legal and factual misrepresentations. While the Commission seeks to present its position as one anchored in law and neutrality, the substance of the Chairman’s own statements reveals a fundamental misapplication of both constitutional principles and judicial directives.
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 organize 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 paralyze 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.
Furthermore, the Chairman’s claim that holding congresses or conventions would “render proceedings nugatory” is an overreach. Internal party processes, conducted in line with the party’s constitution and the Electoral Act, do not extinguish or prejudice pending judicial proceedings. 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.
1/2
