The controversy triggered by the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) decision to withdraw recognition of the Senator David Mark–led leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) continues to reverberate across Nigeria’s political and legal landscape, with prominent lawyers, academics and opposition figures warning that the development could signal a troubling direction for the country’s democracy ahead of the 2027 general elections.
While the electoral body said its action was taken in compliance with a Court of Appeal ruling in an ongoing leadership dispute within the party, critics have questioned both the interpretation of the judgment and the timing of the commission’s move.
INEC had announced that it would remove the names of Senator David Mark and former Osun State governor, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, as National Chairman and National Secretary of the ADC from its portal following its review of the appellate court’s decision in the case involving Mark and former party vice chairman, Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe. The commission also said it would refrain from recognising any faction of the party or monitoring its activities pending the determination of the substantive suit before the Federal High Court.
But rather than settle the dispute, the decision has triggered a wave of criticism, with many analysts arguing that the commission may have overstepped its mandate or misapplied the court’s directive to maintain the “status quo ante bellum.”
Among the first to raise concerns was human rights lawyer and former chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, Prof. Chidi Odinkalu, who suggested that the development may have been influenced by powerful political interests.
In a strongly worded reaction posted on X, Odinkalu claimed that the statement issued by INEC followed consultations involving senior figures within the electoral commission and other institutions of government.
“This release by INEC followed a meeting involving senior leaders of the Commission and other powerful institutions within the last 60 hours,” he wrote.
Odinkalu also made a controversial claim that the chairman of the electoral commission may have acted under pressure, alleging that a pre-signed resignation letter exists which could be used to compel compliance with certain directives.
“I have it on the most impeccable authority that there is a pre-signed resignation letter by the chairman. It was a pre-condition for his appointment, and the threat of releasing it did the magic,” he alleged.
Beyond the allegation of pressure, Odinkalu argued that the commission had assumed a role that properly belonged to the courts by interpreting the meaning of the Court of Appeal judgment.
According to him, if there was any ambiguity about the order directing parties to maintain the status quo, the appropriate step for the commission would have been to seek clarification from the court.
“It is not the business of INEC to interpret the decision of the Court of Appeal,” he said. “If there was doubt about the meaning of the order, the commission should have returned to the court for guidance.”
Another prominent lawyer, Abdul Mahmud, also faulted the electoral body’s handling of the matter, describing its action as inconsistent with the principle of neutrality expected of an election umpire.
“INEC should have approached the Court of Appeal for clarification of its preservative order to maintain status quo ante bellum,” Mahmud said.
“Instead, it chose to act as an adverse umpire rather than a neutral arbiter.”
Mahmud argued that the concept of “status quo ante bellum” is well established in legal practice and refers to preserving the state of affairs that existed before the dispute escalated.
To determine that point, he said, it was necessary to examine when the disagreement over the ADC leadership actually began.
“Did the dispute arise when Nafiu Bala filed the case at the Federal High Court in September 2025, or when the change in leadership occurred in July 2025?” he asked.
“In my view, the dispute began when the leadership change occurred. That was when the controversy crystallised.”
He therefore questioned whether INEC’s interpretation of the court order accurately reflected the intention of the appellate court.
Another outspoken critic, human rights lawyer Inibehe Effiong, warned that the development could have broader implications for Nigeria’s democratic future.
Although he said he had no particular political attachment to the ADC, Effiong argued that the situation raised serious concerns about the fairness of future elections.
“The ADC is not my cup of tea, but there is now reasonable basis to infer the existence of a well-orchestrated sinister conspiracy to truncate contested and credible elections in 2027,” he said.
Effiong also questioned whether the dispute should even have been litigated in the first place, pointing out that internal leadership issues within political parties have traditionally been treated as matters best resolved by the parties themselves.
“Is dispute over the leadership of a political party no longer the internal affairs of the party?” he asked.
He further wondered whether the commission’s interpretation of the court order implied that the party would effectively be left without a recognised leadership until the Federal High Court reaches a final decision.
“Is INEC saying that the order means there should be a leadership vacuum in the ADC until the case is decided?” he asked.
Outside the legal community, the debate has also attracted attention from scholars and commentators.
United States-based professor of journalism and columnist Farooq Kperogi argued that the controversy raises troubling questions about the health of Nigeria’s multi-party democracy.
In a commentary titled “INEC, David Mark, and Coming Abachaian Coronation,” Kperogi suggested that the decision could be interpreted as part of a broader pattern aimed at weakening opposition forces ahead of the next election cycle.
“With INEC’s overtly partisan withdrawal of recognition for the David Mark-led ADC, Nigeria risks returning to an era where the mere appearance of competitive politics is suffocated,” he wrote.
According to Kperogi, several legal analysts have argued that the Court of Appeal’s instruction to maintain the status quo should logically mean preserving the existing leadership arrangement until the court reaches a final determination on the merits of the case.
Instead, he suggested, the commission appeared to have taken a step that could alter the balance of the dispute.
Kperogi warned that such developments could create conditions in which opposition parties are weakened to the point where electoral competition becomes largely symbolic.
“It begins to look less like preparation for a competitive election and more like preparation for a coronation,” he wrote.
Media entrepreneur and ADC chieftain Dele Momodu also weighed in, accusing the electoral commission of repeatedly undermining Nigeria’s democratic progress.
“INEC has been a debilitating albatross on Nigeria,” he said.
Momodu argued that controversies surrounding elections and electoral management have continued to haunt Nigeria since the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election widely believed to have been won by the late Moshood Abiola.
According to him, recent developments have reinforced the perception that opposition parties face structural disadvantages in the political arena.
Leave a Reply