The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has dismissed remarks made by the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Joash Amupitan, during an appearance on ARISE NEWS on Friday morning.
During the interview, the INEC Chairman cautioned the party against going ahead with its planned congresses and convention, warning that such actions could breach existing court orders.
However, in a response issued by its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, the party insisted it would proceed with its convention as planned.
It accused INEC of deliberately misrepresenting the Court of Appeal’s directive to maintain the status quo, describing the stance as contempt of court.
The ADC further alleged that the electoral body had exceeded its supervisory authority by attempting to obstruct lawful party activities, maintaining that internal disagreements do not halt democratic processes and reaffirming its commitment to act within the law.
Read Also: INEC Chairman Sends Strong Warning To ADC Over Planned Convention
“ADC finds it necessary to respond, in order to correct several legal and factual misrepresentations. While the Commission seeks to present its position as one anchored in law and neutrality, the substance of the Chairman’s own statements reveals a fundamental misapplication of both constitutional principles and judicial directives.”
“First, the Chairman’s repeated assertion that INEC is merely acting within the confines of a “multi-party constitutional order” is, with respect, a deflection from the central issue. 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 organize and function.
“The ADC has not alleged the abolition of multi-party democracy in form; rather, it has raised concerns about actions that, in effect, weaken it. The Chairman’s reliance on the existence of multiple parties as proof of neutrality does not address the specific conduct under scrutiny.”
Read Also: INEC Updates ADC’s Information On Its Website
Addressing the Court of Appeal’s directive, Abdullahi stated that the Chairman relied heavily on the doctrine of status quo ante bellum, interpreting it as requiring a reversal to a previous state and a suspension of party activities.
“This interpretation is both selective and legally flawed. The preservation order, by its nature, is intended to prevent actions that would irreversibly alter the subject matter of litigation, not to paralyze the internal functioning of a political party.
“The Chairman’s attempt to define the “status quo” by tracing the controversy to internal party developments in July 2025 is an administrative interpretation that INEC is not empowered to make. That determination lies strictly within the jurisdiction of the courts, not the Commission.
“Furthermore, the Chairman’s claim that holding congresses or conventions would “render proceedings nugatory” is an overreach. Internal party processes, conducted in line with the party’s constitution and the Electoral Act, do not extinguish or prejudice pending judicial proceedings.
“On the contrary, 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. What exists are general preservation directives, which cannot be expanded into a blanket prohibition on party governance.”
The statement emphasized that INEC’s responsibility is not to settle disputes or suspend party operations while issues are being resolved, but to remain neutral and allow due process to take its course.
Reacting to comparisons with past cases such as Zamfara, the party said the analogy was misplaced.
“Those cases involved clear and established failures to comply with mandatory legal requirements for primaries. In contrast, the ADC has demonstrated its commitment to conducting its processes in strict accordance with its constitution and the Electoral Act. Pre-emptively warning of hypothetical judicial consequences, as the Chairman has done, amounts to speculation and cannot serve as a legal basis to restrict lawful party activities.”
“Finally, while the Chairman frames INEC’s position as one of caution to avoid future judicial invalidation of elections, this reasoning cannot justify present overreach. The law does not permit administrative bodies to curtail constitutional rights on the basis of speculative future outcomes. The proper course is to allow parties to act within the law and for courts to adjudicate disputes as they arise.
“In conclusion, the ADC reiterates that its right to organize congresses and hold its national convention is constitutionally guaranteed and has not been lawfully suspended by any court. The interpretation advanced by the INEC Chairman stretches judicial directives beyond their meaning and risks setting a dangerous precedent where regulatory caution becomes a tool for democratic suppression.
“The ADC will therefore proceed with its activities in full compliance with the law and urges INEC to confine itself strictly to its constitutional and statutory mandate.”
