Citing a Court of Appeal ruling, INEC recently withdrew recognition for groups laying claim to the leadership of the opposition ADC.
Legal practitioners have differed on the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) interpretation of a Court of Appeal ruling that has been a source of dispute between the electoral commission and the fast-growing opposition party, the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
Citing the court ruling, INEC suspended the recognition for any group laying claims to the leadership of the ADC, whether it is the David Mark-led National Working Committee (NWC) or the one led by Nafiu Bala, who is challenging Mr Mark’s leadership.
Both factions have protested at INEC headquarters in Abuja, with each demanding recognition by the electoral umpire.
In July 2025, a coalition of opposition leaders led by Atiku Abubakar adopted the ADC to field a flagbearer that would challenge President Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the 2027 election.
On 29 July 2025, a new caretaker committee, headed by David Mark as national chairman and Rauf Aregbesola as national secretary, emerged, following the resignation of the previous party executives led by Ralph Nwosu.
On 9 September 2025, INEC recognised the new ADC leadership and published their particulars on its website.
Meanwhile, Nafiu Bala, a former national vice chairman of the party, challenged the arrangement at the Federal High Court in Abuja, arguing that he should assume leadership in line with the party’s constitution.
On 2 September 2025, days before INEC’s recognition of the new executives, Mr Bala filed a lawsuit against Mr Mark’s leadership at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
But Mr Mark’s group filed an interlocutory appeal at the Court of Appeal, which was dismissed in a ruling delivered on 12 March.
In the ruling, the appellate court also ordered that the parties, including INEC, which is listed as the fourth respondent, “to maintain the status quo ante bellum and shall refrain from taking any step or doing any act capable of foisting a fait accompli on the court or otherwise rendering nugatory the proceedings before the trial court.”
Days later, on 16 March, INEC received letters from both factions, each with different requests.
Mr Bala’s group, represented by Summit Law Chambers, asked the commission to recognise it, citing the judgement of the appeal court.
On the other hand, Mr Mark’s group, represented by Suleiman Usman SAN & Co, asked INEC not to recognise Mr Bala as the party’s chairperson on the account that the substantive suit about the leadership dispute was pending before the Federal High Court.
Meanwhile, another group of ADC members loyal to its presidential candidate in the 2023 election, Dumebi Kachikwu, emerged, claiming to be the authentic leadership of the party.
Citing the appellate court ruling, INEC said it would no longer deal with either faction until the substantive suit is ruled on, saying it is refraining from taking any steps that could prejudice the case.
INEC said it interpreted the status quo ante bellum as the state of affairs that existed before 2 September 2025, which is the date the initial lawsuit regarding the ADC leadership dispute was filed at the Federal High Court.
The commission declined Mr Nafiu’s request to be recognised as the national chairman pending the outcome of the case.
The electoral body also said that it would remove from its portal the names of members of the party’s NWC led by Mr Mark, which was uploaded on 9 September, days after the suit was filed.
“The Commission shall not… receive any further communication or deal with any of the parties or groups pertaining to the affairs of the party and will not monitor any meeting, congress or convention convened on behalf of the ADC by any group until the matter is decided by the Federal High Court, Abuja so as not to do any act capable of foisting a fait accompli on the court or otherwise rendering nugatory the proceedings before the trial court,” INEC said.
But the Mr Mark-led ADC disagreed with INEC’s interpretation and its decision to stop recognising Mr Mark-led NWC.
The group claims that the true status quo ante bellum is the leadership of the caretaker committee, which was inaugurated on 29 July 2025.
It also rejected INEC’s decision to leave the party without a recognised leadership, accusing the electoral commission of inventing “a status quo that never existed” because there was never a time when the ADC lacked a duly constituted leadership.
The group said INEC cannot rely on the 9 September 2025, when it uploaded the names of the ADC leadership on its website, but on 29 July 2025, when the leadership of the party was changed at a NEC meeting.
It also insisted that Mr Bala had duly resigned his position and couldn’t have approached a court to fight for it. But he has denied resigning from the position. Although the group presented a resignation letter said to have been signed by him, he insisted his signature was forged.
Meanwhile, legal practitioners have differed on INEC’s interpretation of the court ruling and the decision that followed.
Ume Chukwuka-Machukwu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), says INEC’s interpretation runs contrary to the position of the constitution, which places a premium on party politics.
Mr Chukwuka-Machukwu argued that political parties play a constitutionally defined role in Nigeria’s democracy by providing alternatives in governance and must, therefore, remain functional despite internal disputes.
He explained that the constitution places significant importance on political parties because the country operates a party-based democratic system, and as such, any interpretation affecting political parties, including actions by INEC, should ensure they remain active and capable of fulfilling their democratic responsibilities.
“The idea of INEC de-recognising all the parties, to me, certainly is going against what the constitution provides,” he said.
“Status quo is to the extent that the party must have an organ that is prolonging, projecting its views in national politics. Not that the party will now be rendered prostrate. And so, if the dispute in the court goes on for the next five years, ADC will be rendered prostrate? No, that’s not the idea.”
