The Independent National Electoral Commission INEC has detailed the legal justifications behind its decision to de-recognize the leadership factions within the African Democratic Congress ADC, asserting that the move was a mandatory response to a “preservatory order” from the Court of Appeal.

The INEC Chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan SAN, dismissed allegations that the commission is in a “cahoot” with the President Bola Tinubu administration to foist a one-party state on Nigerians, maintaining that the commission is simply adhering to judicial directives to maintain the status quo ante bellum.

According to him, the appellate court was explicit in its order to ensure that no party takes any step that would render the final judgment of the trial court nugatory.
Speaking on an Arise TV interview monitored in Abuja on Friday, Amupitan said; “The Court of Appeal not only dismissed the appeal, it was an interlocutory appeal. They dismissed the appeal and at the same time made some preservatory orders.

“And the preservatory orders were very clear, to the extent that, number one, in view of the fact that INEC had already released its timetable for the election, that the trial judge was directed and ordered to proceed with the case expeditiously, that is the court granted accelerated hearing. Then number two, which is now causing the controversy, is the order, specific order that parties should maintain status quo ante bellum. The parties should not do anything that would force a fait accompli on the trial court. Finally, that we should not, parties should not do anything that will render the proceedings before the court negatory.”

Interrogating the definition of the “status quo ante bellum” the INEC chairman explained that the commission had to look back to the period before the current hostilities began.
He noted that the record shows the controversy erupted following a National Executive Committee NEC meeting on July 29, 2025, which purportedly ratified the appointment of Senator David Mark, leading to the initial lawsuit on September 2, 2025.

“So if you look at ante bellum, meaning that before that time, what was the position? I have the record, I went to the record before 2nd of September 2025, when this matter was filed, what were the positions of the parties? And then let the position of the parties be resorted to,” Amupitan explained.

He defended the commission against being labeled a “criminal organization” by the ADC, citing the need for “early warning” to avoid the invalidation of elections, as seen in previous outcomes in Zamfara and Plateau states.
Responding to the fears of a one-party state, Prof. Amupitan insisted on the commission’s neutrality, pointing to the diversity of winners in the last Federal Capital Territory FCT council elections.

He said; “I am not a party to the plan of anyone to turn Nigeria into a one-party state. By the Constitution, Nigeria is a multi-party state. If this judgment did not come, did I just decide on my own?”
Amupitan urged the parties to return to the Federal High Court for the accelerated hearing ordered by the appellate court. “The best in this situation is what the Court of Appeal said. Go back to the court, hear them on time, and decide the matter”, he counselled.

Ex-director disagrees
However, a former Director of Voter Education and Publicity at INEC, Oluwole Osaze-Uzzi, who also appeared on the television channel raised a strong dissent against the commission’s conclusions.

Osaze-Uzzi argued that while the court ordered the preservation of the res, it did not explicitly command the withdrawal of recognition from any faction.

“I disagree with the conclusions reached by the commission. The court did not say that INEC should withdraw recognition from either faction. It never did say so. All it said was that everybody, all parties to the action, which is INEC and the contending factions, should ensure they don’t do anything to render negatory the likely judgment of the court. So don’t do anything that will usurp the powers of the court and its ability to do justice in the matter”, he said.

The former director maintained that the ADC should have been allowed to proceed with its planned activities, provided they did not “impugn on the majesty of the court.”
He noted that INEC’s role in monitoring conventions is to provide an independent report for the court’s future use, rather than to grant or withhold validity to the meeting itself.
“Whether INEC attends that convention or not does not necessarily invalidate the convention, the congress and the convention and its outcome. The essence of the monitoring is just to ensure that if a dispute arises, then the courts can look at the INEC report and take it as the report of an independent, unbiased person”, he explained.

Blame Atiku’s coalition if…
The leadership tussle is also now complicated by allegations of forgery and external interference.
Bala Sani, Chief of Staff to Nafiu Bala Gombe, the controversial Deputy National Vice Chairman of the ADC, asked Nigerians to hold the Atiku Abubakar’s anti-Tinubu coalition responsible for any electoral mishap that befalls the ADC.

He alleged that the crisis was manufactured when the former chairman, Ralph Nwosu, purportedly resigned and handpicked David Mark as a successor.
Sani vehemently denied that Gombe ever resigned his position, labeling the resignation letter in circulation as a fake.

“Nafiu Bala has said that he did not resign. And there is no justification for Nafu Bala resigning. This letter in circulation is forged. It’s a fake,” Sani asserted.
He also challenged the Mark-led group for moving the matter to the Supreme Court, which he claims is a delay tactic.

“They are the one delaying the matter right now. This court of appeal directed us to go back to the high court so that the substantive matter will be heard. If anything happen to ADC today, the coalition people will be held responsible”, he said.