The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has accused the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Joash Amupitan, of misrepresenting legal and constitutional principles in his recent comments regarding the party’s leadership crisis and internal activities.
In a strongly worded statement issued on Friday the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Balaji Abdullahi, said the commission’s interpretation of court directives and its handling of the dispute within the party amounted to an overreach that could undermine democratic participation.
Responding to an interview granted by the INEC chairman, the ADC said the commission’s repeated reference to Nigeria’s multi-party constitutional order was a diversion from the real issue raised by the party.
According to Abdullahi, the concern is not whether Nigeria formally operates a multi-party system, but whether the actions of the electoral body are, in practice, weakening the ability of opposition parties to function freely.
“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 organise and function,” the statement said.
The party also faulted the commission’s reliance on the doctrine of status quo ante bellum in interpreting the Court of Appeal’s directive in the dispute, arguing that the interpretation presented by the INEC chairman was legally flawed.
ADC maintained that preservation orders issued by courts are intended to prevent irreversible actions that could affect the subject of litigation, and not to halt the internal functioning of a political party.
According to the party, determining what constitutes the “status quo” in the dispute is a matter strictly within the jurisdiction of the courts and not an administrative decision that can be taken by the electoral commission.
The opposition party also rejected the claim that holding congresses or conventions would undermine ongoing court proceedings, insisting that internal party processes conducted in line with the party’s constitution and the Electoral Act do not invalidate pending litigation.
“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,” the party stated.
On INEC’s position that it could not monitor congresses due to an injunction, the ADC argued that the commission had misunderstood its statutory role.
The party said INEC’s responsibility is limited to monitoring internal party processes upon notification and does not determine the validity of such activities.
According to Abdullahi, the decision of a political party to proceed with its internal processes does not depend on the commission’s participation.
The ADC also dismissed INEC’s claim that conflicting communications from different factions within the party justified its decision to halt engagement with the party’s leadership.
It argued that internal disagreements are common in political parties and should not be used as grounds to suspend a party’s constitutional rights.
The party further criticised the INEC chairman’s reference to past judicial precedents such as the Zamfara case, describing the comparison as inappropriate.
According to the ADC, the Zamfara case involved clear violations of legal requirements governing party primaries, whereas the ADC has consistently maintained that its internal processes comply with the Electoral Act and its constitution.
The party warned that attempts by regulatory authorities to restrict party activities on the basis of speculative future court rulings could set a dangerous precedent.
“Administrative bodies cannot curtail constitutional rights on the basis of speculative future outcomes. The proper course is to allow parties to act within the law while the courts resolve disputes as they arise,” the statement added.
The ADC therefore reiterated that its right to conduct congresses and hold its national convention remains constitutionally guaranteed and has not been suspended by any court order.