ADC crisis and technical inconsistency in INEC’s legal reasoning

The dispute over the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has evolved into a narrow but significant legal question. It is no longer only about who leads the party. It has become a question of whether the Independent National Electoral Commission’s current position is consistent with its own sworn affidavit before the court.

At the centre of this question is the affidavit deposed to by INEC in response to the suit filed by Nafiu Bala Gombe, which directly challenged the emergence and recognition of the leadership led by David Mark.

The roots of the dispute lie in events that predated the litigation. In July 2025, the party’s then National Chairman, Ralph Nwosu, stepped down at a National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting and endorsed a new National Working Committee led by David Mark. Gombe, who had been Deputy National Chairman, objected, insisting he should succeed Nwosu. The opposing faction, however, maintained that Gombe had earlier resigned in May 2025, a position backed by documentation already submitted to and acknowledged by INEC. His denial of that resignation triggered the legal battle that followed.

In September 2025, Gombe approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking to restrain the Mark-led leadership. INEC, in its response, took a clear legal position. It argued that the leadership change had already been completed and communicated before the suit was filed, rendering the action ineffective. In essence, the Commission told the court that the matter had been overtaken by events and that there was nothing left to restrain.

That position remained part of the record when the Court of Appeal intervened on March 12, 2026, in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/145/2026. The court directed all parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum and to refrain from actions that could prejudice the case. The order did not nullify any leadership, nor did it define the exact state of affairs to be preserved.

Subsequent developments, however, deepened the controversy. As the Mark-led group continued preparations for party activities ahead of the 2027 elections, including planned congresses and a national convention, INEC received conflicting legal communications from both sides.

After what it described as a careful review of the court processes, the Commission chose to interpret the appellate directive conservatively. It withdrew recognition of the Mark-led leadership, removed its details from its official records, and declined to recognise any rival faction. The decision effectively placed the party in administrative limbo, a move widely seen as a destabilising setback for a platform that had been gaining traction as a major opposition force.

This is where the technical inconsistency becomes apparent. Having earlier informed the court that the leadership change was already a completed act before the suit was filed, INEC’s subsequent decision effectively suspends that same outcome without a direct judicial pronouncement setting it aside.

Public statements from the Commission have consistently framed this position as one of strict compliance with judicial orders and institutional neutrality. Its Chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan, has stressed that INEC must avoid any step that could confer advantage on either side while the case is pending.

He also cautioned against attempts to bypass due process, citing the precedent of the Zamfara APC Supreme Court ruling, where the courts voided the election of all candidates of the APC, including the governor, after the party failed to comply with legal requirements governing its primaries. The ruling underscored the far-reaching consequences of procedural breaches, as votes cast for the APC were excluded and candidates of the next qualifying party were declared winners.

The legal difficulty lies in reconciling INEC’s present stance with its earlier affidavit. If the Commission had already deposed on oath that the leadership change occurred before the suit was filed, then the logical implication is that the state of affairs at the commencement of the dispute included the existence of that leadership. In that sense, preserving the status quo ante bellum would ordinarily mean maintaining that arrangement, at least until a court rules otherwise.

Instead, INEC’s current interpretation appears to locate the status quo at a point preceding both the litigation and the contested leadership change. By withdrawing recognition, it has effectively suspended the very outcome it had earlier described as completed before the dispute arose.

The appeal filed by the Mark-led leadership adds another layer to the legal context. In that appeal, the leadership sought clear orders affirming its legitimacy and restraining interference with its recognition by INEC. The implication is straightforward. It invites the appellate court to confirm that the recognised structure should remain in place pending the resolution of the dispute, reinforcing the principle that completed acts should not be disturbed by interim orders unless expressly set aside.

The Court of Appeal did not grant those specific reliefs at the interim stage. It issued a general preservatory order, leaving room for interpretation.

INEC’s response reflects one end of that spectrum, prioritising institutional caution even if it means stepping back from its earlier legal position. The Mark-led leadership adopts the opposite view, arguing that the order preserves its existing recognition. Both positions draw from established legal principles. The divergence lies in the reference point each adopts.

Beyond the legal question, the practical consequences of INEC’s position are already unfolding and could become more pronounced with time. By withdrawing recognition from all factions and declining to engage with either side, the Commission has effectively stepped back from its statutory role in the internal processes of the party.

That decision carries immediate implications for the ADC’s electoral preparations. Political parties are required under Nigerian law to conduct valid congresses, conventions and primaries under the supervision of INEC. With the Commission insisting it will not monitor or recognise activities conducted by either faction while the dispute subsists, any such exercises risk being rendered legally defective, regardless of how well organised they may be.

In practical terms, this places the party at a significant disadvantage. The Mark-led group had already commenced mobilisation ahead of the 2027 general election, including membership drives, planned congresses and a national convention. Those timelines are now uncertain.

Even if conducted, the legal status of outcomes from such processes may be challenged, potentially exposing the party to further rounds of litigation.

The implications extend beyond internal organisation. Candidate nomination is time-bound and strictly regulated. If the leadership dispute is not resolved within a reasonable timeframe, the ADC could face difficulties fielding candidates whose nominations meet legal thresholds. In a worst-case scenario, unresolved procedural defects could lead to disqualification from participating in certain elections, particularly off-cycle contests where timelines are tighter.

There is also a broader  political cost. The ADC had, in recent months, begun to position itself as a credible opposition platform, attracting new entrants and building momentum. Prolonged uncertainty over its leadership structure risks slowing that momentum, weakening internal cohesion, and discouraging prospective defectors who may be wary of committing to a platform whose legal standing remains unsettled.Politics

All of this remains contingent on the speed and clarity of judicial resolution. A prompt and definitive ruling by the Federal High Court, or subsequent appellate intervention, could restore certainty and allow the party to recalibrate. But until that happens, INEC’s current stance, while grounded in a claim of neutrality, has the practical effect of freezing the party’s institutional processes at a critical pre-election period.

In that sense, the issue is no longer confined to legal interpretation alone. It now intersects directly with electoral viability. The longer the uncertainty persists, the greater the risk that the ADC’s preparations, participation, and eventual performance in forthcoming elections could be materially affected, not by a final judicial determination, but by the interim consequences of an unresolved dispute rooted in a still-unsettled inconsistency in INEC’s legal position.

.Remi Ladigbolu is a Lagos-based journalist