The recent de-recognition of the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) calls for concern from all lovers of democracy in Nigeria and the world at large. This occurred at a time when Nigerians are lamenting the gradual degeneration of the country’s hard-won democracy into a one-party dictatorship.
The lamentation of Nigerians is obviously not unfounded. In the past few months, we have watched with nostalgia the wave of defection of elected governors and federal lawmakers from our troubled opposition parties to the ruling All Progressive Congress (APC), thus weakening the opposition.
Deeply disturbing is the role of the chairman of INEC, Professor Joash Amupitan, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), in the attempt to emasculate the opposition, apparently to make things very easy for the ruling party in the forthcoming 2027 general election. Since the Kogi State-born law professor assumed office as the INEC chairman, the commission has interfered in the internal affairs of opposition parties in a manner widely seen as both inappropriate and unlawful.
In some cases, like that of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), INEC scandalously sided with one faction against another in an intra-party leadership dispute. The current posture of the commission not only betrays its neutrality, but contradicts the commitment made before the Senate by Amupitan on the day of his screening, to uphold the autonomy of the commission and ensure that it operates without political and financial interference.
In spite of this commitment, INEC under Amupitan, has been taking inconsistent positions on intra-party disputes, particularly when they affect the opposition parties. For example, in spite of a pending matter before the Supreme Court on the PDP leadership dispute, the commission monitored the convention of the faction loyal to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike. Within 24 hours the names of those elected from the convention of the Wike faction were uploaded to INEC portal as the leadership of PDP, regardless of the appeal filed by the Turaki faction before the Supreme Court.
A few days later, the names of the ADC national chairman, David Mark and secretary, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, were deleted from the INEC portal. The commission claimed it took this action in response to a leadership crisis rocking the ADC and in strict interpretation of a Court of Appeal judgment, directing parties in the dispute to maintain “status quo ante bellum” (the state of affairs before the dispute).
Speaking in a live interview with Arise TV, Amupitan stated that INEC’s action was aimed at adhering to the court order, which required the commission not to take any action that could affect the subject matter of the pending case in the federal high court. Dismissing the allegation of bias, Amupitan maintained that INEC was not taking sides but, instead, attempting to interrogate the status quo before the hostility started.
I cannot parade myself as a “legal scholar” like the INEC boss. Nevertheless, I heard a former legal director in the commission, Oluwole Osaze-Uzi, say that “the commission misread the court ruling and overstepped in the ADC leadership dispute.”
Osaze-Uzi, an undisputed authority in this area, challenged the commission’s interpretation of the Court of Appeal order and questioned its decision to halt recognition of rival party factions. According to him, the appellate court did not instruct INEC to de-recognize any faction but merely directed all parties to maintain restraint pending the determination of the substantive matter.
Speaking in a similar vein, Femi Falana, SAN, stated that INEC wrongly interpreted the Court of Appeal order, which in turn aided the ruling APC in its aim to turn Nigeria to a one-party state. He maintained that the order of the appellate court required recognizing the leadership that existed prior to the dispute, rather than halting the entire activities of the party.
If the commission was truly attempting to interrogate the status quo before the hostility began, I do not see why it cannot be patient enough to conclude the interrogation before de-recognising the ADC leadership. Why the haste?
The commission even went further to issue a strong warning to ADC to desist from proceeding with its planned congresses and national convention, citing potential legal pitfalls similar to those experienced in Zamfara and Plateau states. That the commission did not recognise the factional ADC leadership of Nafiu Bala Gombe was diversionary, because that faction was never recognised by the commission ab initio.
The electoral body accorded recognition to Mark and Aregbesola on September 10, 2025, more than two months after the founder/national chairman of ADC, Chief Ralph Okey Nwosu, and other executive members stepped down on July 2, 2025, at the NEC of ADC. Nwosu announced publicly that they stepped down for the new leadership to reposition the party.
In a live TV interview after the controversial INEC de-recognition of the Mark and Aregbesola-led ADC leadership, Chief Nwosu maintained that the commission actively participated in the process that midwifed the leadership it de-recognised.
According to the former ADC National Chairman, INEC under Professor Mahmood Yakubu, not only observed, but also provided guidance during the transition process.
So, the recognition did not occur serendipitously. Processes were followed under the guidance of INEC and in accordance with the ADC constitution and conventions. Simple logic should have taught a professor of law and Senior Advocate of Nigeria that the dispute over the party leadership (that is if any truly existed) started at the point Gombe approached the court to contest the legitimacy of the Mark and Aregbesola led leadership.
Gombe went to court on September 2, 2025. Although Gombe’s letter of resignation, dated May 17, 2025, trended on the social media, the former Deputy Chairman claimed that he did not resign from his position and ought to have taken over when Nwosu stepped aside as the Chairman, in line with the ADC Constitution.
Given that the matter is already in court and an order has been made by the Court of Appeal for all the parties to maintain the status quo, INEC, being the umpire, ought not to have descended into the arena as a player, by hastily de-recognising the recognised ADC leadership. Let us hope that the commission was not acting the script of anti-democratic elements within the ruling party and their opposition allies, who are hell-bent on stifling the opposition.
It was too much of a coincidence that immediately after the de-recognition of Mark and Aregbesola, the National Secretary of APC, Ajibola Basiru, urged INEC to deregister ADC because they do not want ballot papers clustered? If our democracy has come to the point of the ruling party dictating the shape and form of the ballot paper to the electoral umpire, are we not in serious trouble?
The aggressive FCT Minister, Mr. Wike, an ally of the ruling APC, also joined the fray, faulting INEC for not recognizing the Nafiu Bala Gombe leadership. Wike’s statement coincided with a trending report on a popular online news site, alleging that he doled out favours, including land and huge cash gifts to top INEC officials. The report which has not been refuted as of the time of penning down this article, alleged that the INEC Chairman may have indirectly benefited from the gifts.
Hence, I expect Amupitan to clear his name and purge INEC of compromised officials, instead of interfering in the internal affairs of opposition parties. Section I53 of the 1999 Constitution established INEC, consisting the Chairman and 12 National Electoral Commissioners. The same constitution created political parties (Section 221-229). Hence, it is improper for INEC to meddle in the internal affairs of the parties.
The commission ought to have allowed the court to resolve the dispute over the ADC leadership. I say this without prejudice to the fact that the Supreme Court of Nigeria has established that internal party leadership disputes are non-justiciable and internal affairs of political parties.
Let INEC concentrate on its constitutional mandate of organising and supervising elections for the President, Vice President, Governors, Deputy Governor, all other legislative bodies, along with monitoring political parties. Stifling opposition through scare mongering is not part of the mandate of the commission.
The circumstances of the current ADC leadership dispute differ from what happened in Zamfara and Plateau states in 2019 and 2023 respectively. I advise Amupitan to go and study the files, which I believe are still there in the commission.
I will end by urging the INEC Chairman to remember that the democracy we are enjoying in Nigeria today did not come on a platter. It is a product of a long-drawn struggle against military rule. The emasculation of the opposition could wreck Nigeria’s hard-won democracy.
Opposition in indispensable in a democracy. A democracy without a vibrant opposition is a camouflaged dictatorship. The absence of a strong opposition party means that the ruling party has successfully conquered, crushed or neutralised divergent voices, leading to a de-facto one-party state.
In a one-party state, there is limited/no competition in the political space, restriction of rights and freedom, suppression of dissenting voices and domination of state institutions, the military and even the economy, by the party apparatus. Contemporary examples include North Korea, China, Cuba and Vietnam. Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Communist Soviet Union are among the historical examples. One hopes that it is not in this direction that current INEC is taking Nigeria.
The post Between ADC and Amupitan’s dependent national electoral commission appeared first on The Sun Nigeria.
