REWIND: In September 2025, INEC official swore an affidavit telling court not to dabble in ADC affairs

In an affidavit deposed at the federal high court in Abuja on September 12, 2025, Jacob Ayuba, an official of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), asked the court not to interfere in the “domestic affairs” of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

Ayuba, an assistant executive officer at INEC, deposed to the affidavit to explain why the application of the plaintiff, Nafiu Bala, the factional chairman of the ADC, should not be granted.

Bala had approached the federal high court in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025 on September 2, 2025, to stop members of the David Mark-led ADC’s national working committee (NWC) from parading themselves as party leaders.

On July 2, 2025, Ralph Nwosu, the founder of ADC and national chairman, announced the resignation of the NWC and endorsed the interim leadership headed by Mark.

However, the arrangement was soon contested by a faction of the party.

Bala, who was the ADC vice-national chairman at the time, maintained that he never resigned his position and argued that, following Nwosu’s exit as the national chairman, he ought to have assumed leadership in line with the party’s constitution.

Respondents in the suit filed by Bala are ADC (first defendant); David Mark (second defendant); Rauf Aregbesola (third defendant); INEC (fourth defendant); and Ralph Nwosu (fifth defendant).

Bala also sought an order to restrain INEC from recognising Mark-led NWC and to compel recognition of himself as acting national chairman.

He further filed motions seeking to stop the party from holding meetings, congresses, or conventions pending the determination of the suit.

The motion ex parte was heard on September 4, 2025, and Emeka Nwite, the presiding judge, directed that the respondents, including INEC, be put on notice to show cause why the motion ex parte should not be granted.

As a respondent in the suit, INEC deposed to an affidavit to show cause why Bala’s prayers should not be granted.

THE AFFIDAVIT

In the affidavit, the INEC official said a letter from ADC was received on July 4, 2025, inviting the commission to monitor the party’s national executive council (NEC) fixed for July 29, 2025, at the ADC global campus in Abuja.

Ayuba said the venue was later changed to Chelsea Hotel in Abuja, adding that INEC deployed its officials to monitor the ADC NEC meeting.

He said the INEC officials who monitored the ADC NEC meeting filed a report and submitted it at the commission’s headquarters.

According to him, the monitoring report indicates that ADC NEC effected changes in its leadership on July 29, 2025, by appointing Mark as national chairman and Aregbesola as national secretary.

Ayuba said following the changes of the ADC leadership, INEC uploaded the names of Mark and Aregbesola on its website.

“The 4th Defendant in furtherance of the change of leadership in the 1st Defendant’s National Working Committee, also uploaded the names of all the National Officers of the Party on its website,” part of the affidavit reads.

“A Copy of the list of the National Officers of the 1st Defendant uploaded on the 4th Defendant is herein attached and marked as Exhibit “INEC 3”.

“The acts the Plaintiff/Applicant seeks to restrain by the ex parte application have already been completed, to wit:

“a. The National Executive Committee (NEC) Meeting of the 1st Defendant fixed for 29th July, 2025 has been held wherein the 5th Defendant and his other national officers of the Party resigned their positions and appointed 2nd and 3rd Defendants as interim National Chairman and National Secretary respectively.

“b. That based on the outcome of the 1st Defendant’s NEC Meeting of 29th July, 2025, the 4th Defendant has already accorded recognition to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants as the National Chairman and National Secretary respectively of the Party and reflected same on the 4th Defendant’s Website.

“That I know as a fact that an injunction cannot lie to stop a completed act (that is recognition of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants as National Chairman and National Secretary of the 1st Defendant and the publication of their names on the 4th Defendant’s website).

“That the Plaintiff’s application is in substance an invitation to this Honourable Court to delve into issues of internal/domestic affairs of 1st Defendant as a political party.

“That I know as a fact that a Court of record should not dabble into a political question which remains the exclusive preserve of political parties which should be allowed to do their things.

“That the Plaintiff’s grievances as contained in his Originating Summons relate solely to the 1st Defendant’s internal processes of changing National Officers of the Party.

“That I know as a fact that the jurisdiction of the Court in party affairs is limited to where its complaint is about the conduct of its primaries for the selection/ nomination of a candidate and which is not the case of the Plaintiff in this case.”

ADC APPROACHED COURT OF APPEAL

Dissatisfied with the interim ruling of the lower court, Mark filed an appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the federal high court to continue to hear Bala’s suit.

However, on March 12, 2026, the court of appeal dismissed Mark’s case in its entirety, holding that it was incompetent and unmeritorious.

A three-member panel of the appellate court, led by Uchechukwu Onyemenam, found that there was no substantive ruling by the federal high court on the ex parte application, as the trial judge merely ordered that parties be put on notice.

As such, there was no valid decision upon which an appeal could properly be anchored.

The court further faulted Mark for relying on an enrolled order rather than the actual proceedings and ruling of the trial court, noting that only the judge’s pronouncement constitutes the authentic record of the court.

The court directed parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum and refrain from taking any action capable of undermining the proceedings before the trial court.

On April 1, INEC said it would refrain from engaging with either Mark or Bala’s groups or monitoring their meetings, congresses, and conventions, citing the judgement of the court of appeal.(TheCable)