ADC Fires Back at INEC as Amupitan Stands His Ground

·         APC, Keyamo join the fight

·         ADC to electoral body’s chair: You are not the court

·         Insists Amupitan acting in contempt of court

·         Kachikwu warns 2027 aspirants against joining ADC, says party in legal limbo

Chuks Okocha, Sunday Aborisade, Adedayo Akinwale in Abuja, Chinedu Eze and Erizia Rubyjeana in Lagos,

There appears to be no end in sight to the spat between the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the African Democratic Congress (ADC), as the party pushed back against warnings by INEC Chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan, during an exclusive interview on ARISE NEWS yesterday, that proceeding with its congresses and convention could violate existing court orders.

This comes as the All Progressives Congress (APC), reacting to what appears to be a setback for the ADC, described the opposition party as a group of unserious individuals with a penchant for internal conflicts, and urged it not to blame President Tinubu for its predicament.

The Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development, Festus Keyamo, who also weighed in on the matter, chided the David Mark’s faction of the ADC, saying the use of emotional reasoning and blackmail cannot enable it bluff its way out of “purely legal conundrum” it brought upon itself.

Former Presidential candidate of the ADC, Dumebi Kachikwu, warned all aspirants in the 2027 general elections to avoid contesting on the platform of the party, saying it has been embroiled in a legal quagmire.

The ADC described the position of the INEC Chairman as wilful distortion of the Court of Appeal’s directive to maintain the status quo, which amounts to contempt of the court.

ADC accused INEC of overstepping its supervisory role and attempting to halt lawful processes, insisting that internal disputes do not suspend democratic functions, while reaffirming its decision to proceed in full compliance with the law.

In a statement by the National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, the ADC stated that it carefully reviewed the interview granted by Amupitan, and found it necessary to respond in order to correct several legal and factual misrepresentations.

The ADC said while the Commission seeks to present its position as one anchored on law and neutrality, the substance of the Chairman’s own statements revealed a fundamental misapplication of both constitutional principles and judicial directives.

According to the ADC spokesman, “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 organise 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.

“On the issue of the Court of Appeal’s order, the Chairman places heavy reliance on the doctrine of status quo ante bellum, suggesting that it requires a rollback to a particular point in time 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 paralyse 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 assertion that INEC is restrained from monitoring congresses due to an injunction equally exposes a critical misunderstanding of its role. INEC’s duty to monitor is statutory and triggered upon proper notification. A party’s decision to proceed with its internal processes does not depend on INEC’s participation. By conflating its monitoring function with the validity of the processes themselves, INEC effectively places itself above the law, assuming a veto power it does not possess.”, the ADC spokesman.

The Chairman also referenced conflicting communications from different factions within the ADC as justification for inaction.

However, Abdullahi in response stated,  “the existence of internal disputes does not suspend a political party’s constitutional rights. Indeed, such disputes are commonplace in democratic systems and are routinely resolved without administrative paralysis. INEC’s role is not to arbitrate these disputes or to freeze party activities pending their resolution, but to maintain neutrality and allow due process to run its course.

“On the invocation of precedents such as Zamfara, the comparison is 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 organise 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.”, the spokesman of the party said.

Amupitan: No Plan to Turn Nigeria into One-Party State, I remain neutral

Amupitan strongly rejected allegations that the electoral body was complicit in plans to entrench a one-party state, insisting that the commission’s actions are strictly guided by the law and existing court orders.

In an exclusive interview with ARISE NEWS, Amupitan pushed back against accusations from opposition parties, particularly the ADC, that INEC had taken sides in its internal leadership crisis.

“I am not guilty as charged. Let me say it very clearly. I am not a party to the plan of anyone to turn Nigeria into a one-party state. By the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Nigeria is a multi-party state. Look at the last election. Many parties contested. I think about 10 political parties. In that case, you even had the ADC having five, and PDP winning one. Zenith Labour Party did very well. Other parties are existing.”

He stressed that Nigeria’s democratic structure remains firmly multi-party, adding, “By the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Nigeria is a multi-party state.”

Addressing the controversy surrounding INEC’s decision not to recognise any faction within the ADC, Amupitan explained. “The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, and at the same time made some preservation orders. The preservation 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, the intelligence was directed an order to proceed with the case expectations, and this is an originating summons.

“Then number two, which is now causing the controversy, is the order, specific order, that parties should maintain status quo ante bellum. I did not just stop at that. The parties should not do anything that would force defeat or conflict on the tri-accords. And finally, that we should not, parties should not do anything that would render the proceedings before the Court of Appeals, just like the definite orders of the Court of Appeals.”

Amupitan said the interpretation of status quo ante bellum was central to INEC’s decision-making.

“So, if you look at it from that perspective, and there are some difficult decisions to that effect. The status quo is even different from status quo ante bellum. So, when you talk of status quo ante bellum, it means I have to go back. And that was a specific order of action. There is an indication of time here, Yes. When you say status quo ante bellum. At what point will you put the date of that status quo? If you look at it backwards now, you look at it from the viewpoint of when was there a controversy. Controversy started when on the 29th day, July 2025, there was a meeting of NEC, which now ratified the appointment of the deputy national president. So, that’s when we had issues.”

He traced the origins of the crisis to internal developments within the ADC.

“Until the controversy came. So, if you look at it backwards now, you look at it from the viewpoint of when was there a controversy. Controversy started when on the 29th day, July 2025, there was a meeting of NEC, which now ratified the appointment of the deputy national president. So, that’s when we had issues. Before that time, what was the position?

“Now, in this case, the plaintiff went to court on the 2nd of September, 2025. He filed their motions, motion of exparte, motion on notice for injunction, and also filed further motions of exparte on the 15th of December, and motion on notice restraining us, and even stopping them from parading themselves. Those are proceedings.”

According to him, these legal processes created binding constraints on INEC’s actions.

“Those are proceedings. Court of Appeal said, don’t do anything that will render any proceeding, whether it is valid, whether it is competent or not, so long as it is filed. Don’t do anything that will render the proceeding nugatory.

“So, if we are going to take any step, to go and monitor any primaries, there’s an injunction that stops us from going there. To go and monitor any congress, there’s an injunction that is stopping us from going there.”

He revealed that INEC received conflicting communications from opposing factions.

“On the 16th day of March 2026, I received two letters. One from the solicitors of Senator David Mark, requesting me to maintain the status quo, if ever, and not to recognise the other. That’s when I also received another letter from Summit Chambers, the solicitors, that by order of the courts, he was supposed to be recognised as the leader, national leader of ADC, and requesting that I should come down. So naturally, when you receive such communications, you have to refer it first. I call a meeting of the legal department and the EPO, and we look at the facts based on the changes.”

Amupitan warned that disregarding such legal constraints could have far-reaching consequences.

“We don’t want to go into a situation where they say, no, don’t do anything, don’t take any step. I have the judgement. It’s very definite. So, if I proceed, for instance, to monitor the convention, it means that I’m taking steps that is meant to offend the subject matter that is pending before the court.”

He cited instances where political parties lost electoral victories due to non-compliance with court orders.

 “Well, as far as we are concerned, INEC is a party in the case and INEC was sued as a defendant by a member of the leadership. Parties, including David Mark himself, should refrain from doing anything that would face the situation of fait accompli. So, if they are going ahead with their congress, with their convention, it’s left for them to look at it, whether it’s in contravention or not, because INEC did not just take a decision.

“We didn’t just wake up one day and took this decision. There was something that led to it. There was another part: don’t do anything, don’t take any step that would render any proceeding before the court nullity.

“We don’t want to conduct an election without these early warnings. And at the end of the day, after you have won, the court again will come and declare the election invalid. And the implication is that the person with the second highest number of votes will be declared the winner.

“It happened during the last election, where after the question of primaries was an issue, and congresses were not held in some states, in some parts of the State. So, the court said, go and do those primaries. But unfortunately, they did not obey the court order. So, failing to obey the court order has consequences.”

The INEC chairman also addressed concerns about the commission’s planned voter register revalidation exercise. “Now, the opposition parties say this is a plan to disenfranchise many Nigerians. The decision to revalidate the voters’ register was taken even before I became the chairman. The only problem is that it has not been implemented.

“That is why I have now decided to put it in this year’s budget, so that the exercise will be carried out. Our records for now, if you’re not adding the number that I’ve registered recently, we have about 93 million voters. That record is not great.”

Amupitan explained that the validation process would be conducted in phases.

 “Now, the validation is going to be two phases. You have the first phase, which has to do with framework, and then engagement with the stakeholders. Then you have the second phase, which has to do with going to the fields,” he said.

 APC, Keyamo Knock ADC

The APC has said that it was malicious and outright propaganda for the ADC to blame President Bola Tinubu for its current predicament.

It also added that the call by the opposition for the sack of the INEC Chairman and other Commissioners further exposed a lack of seriousness and understanding of leadership processes of established institutions.

Addressing a press conference yesterday in Abuja, the National Secret of APC, Senator Ajibola wondered how Tinubu was weakening the opposition to force a one party state ahead of the 2027 elections when there are 19 registered political parties in Nigeria.

He stated: “Nigerians must know that the present predicament of David Mark and his ilk has to do with the untidy way they hijacked the leadership of an existing political party without carrying along all stakeholders resulting in court litigation before the Federal High Court and the adverse judgment of the Court of Appeal.”

The secretary explained that the ADC went to the Court of Appeal over an internal leadership dispute that was still ongoing at trial court, and in doing so, made a fundamental legal mistake.

Basiru added that the appellate court found that the lower court had not granted injunctive reliefs sought but merely asked the defendants to show cause why the others sought should not be granted, implicating that Mark’s faction appeal was built on a faulty premise.

He stressed that in addition to this, the key issue of jurisdiction was still pending at the trial court, making the appeal premature, and they failed to obtain the required leave for an interlocutory appeal, an error serious enough to render the entire case incompetent.

Basiru noted that the appeal was therefore completely dismissed, with the court ordering all parties to maintain the status quo and avoid any actions that could disrupt the ongoing case, “effectively portraying ADC as acting hastily, procedurally flawed, and in disregard of due legal process.”

He said it was  the orders of the court that was being put into effect by INEC and “we are at loss the basis for the allegation that President Bola Tinubu is weakening opposition in the circumstance.”

Basiru added: “David Mark approached the Court of Appeal, and his appeal was dismissed as unmeritorious  status quo was ordered to be maintained and cost awarded against him.

“In the circumstance, where does President Bola Tinubu features in their predicament, if not outright fallacious and malicious propaganda.

“The David Mark factional ADC leadership appear to be indulging in self-delusion by positioning themselves as the leading opposition, when their recent electoral outings clearly suggest otherwise.

“You cannot lay claim to national relevance while your performance at the polls remains abysmal and unconvincing.”

The party’s scribe said since the inception of their so- called coalition, ADC has been roundly rejected at the polls by Nigerians, including during the recently held Local Government Area Council election held in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

According to him, Leadership of the opposition is not declared through press conferences or rhetoric; it is earned through consistent electoral credibility and public trust, both of which they have struggled to demonstrate.

Basiru said: “Therefore, President Bola Tinubu and indeed the All Progressives Congress cannot be bothered about the contraption of electoral unviability being bandied as a “coalition”!

“The purported misinterpretation of Court of Appeal Decision by INEC and Alleged Bias of INEC.

“The ADC orders being implemented by the Independent National Electoral Commission was as a consequence of the dismissal of an appeal filed by Senator David Mark and his faction at the Court of Appeal, where the decision did not go in their favour but rather the Court of Appeal upheld the position of the respondent.

“If Senator Mark and his factional ADC leadership believe INEC’s interpretation is flawed, they ought to know the proper channel to seek redress—the courts. INEC, on its part, has categorically stated that it is acting in line with maintaining the status quo ante bellum as directed by the Court of Appeal.

“The public defiant posture of Senator Mark and his factional ADC leadership against orders of the Court of Appeal and its implementation by INEC not only amounts to self-help but recklessness and a clear display of irresponsibility.

“More concerning is their posture toward the Independent National Electoral Commission and the rule of law. Insisting on proceeding with party congresses despite an ongoing case at the Federal High Court challenging their leadership, raises serious questions about their respect for legal processes.

Basiru pointed out that such defiance signals a troubling disregard for institutions and due process, undermining any claim to democratic responsibility.

He noted: “Their call for the sack of the INEC Chairman and other INEC Commissioners further exposes a lack of seriousness and understanding of leadership processes of established institutions.

“As experienced politicians and former public office holders, they ought to know the constitutional process governing appointments and tenure within INEC, and that decisions are taken by the commission, not the Chairman alone.

“It is preposterous that these undemocratic elements have the audacity to call for the removal of not only the INEC Chairman but the entire National Commissioners.”

The ruling party said the sacked Mark’s leadership  has insisted on proceeding with its scheduled activities including congresses and convention despite an ongoing case at the Federal High Court challenging their leadership and in defiance of the subsisting judgment, saying this again raises serious questions about their respect for legal processes and the rule of Law.

Basiru stated: “It is settled law that court decisions are binding on all parties until set aside by a competent court. The avowed refusal by Senator Mark and his co-travellers to comply with court decisions demonstrates a troubling disregard for the rule of law and democratic responsibility.

“Making those bold assertions of defiance to judicial processes and institutional decisions, despite the clear legal implications that all parties must maintain the status quo to avoid avoid foisting fait accompli in the the ongoing proceedings at the trial court showed clear desperations and absence of democratic and rule of law credentials by the Mark and his factional ADC leadership.”

In the same vein, Keyamo chided the ADC, saying the use of emotional reasoning and blackmail cannot enable it bluff its way out of “purely legal conundrum” it brought upon itself.

In the post, he made in his verified X (formerly twitter) account, Keyamo said decisions are based on facts, evidence, and the interpretation of laws, rather than on sympathy, emotion or political considerations.

“All those who are arguing about ‘status quo ante bellum’ are dispensing their time and energy chasing shadows and not the substance.  This is because whether INEC recognises either faction for now is irrelevant: what is relevant is that there is a challenge regarding the take-over of the party pending in court by a duly elected Deputy National Chairman. 

“As long as that case remains in court, all the actions of either faction may end up being nugatory after the deadline for nominations of candidates by INEC. The implication is that the ADC may end up having no candidate for the election. Therefore, instead of vilifying INEC, the ADC should rather thank INEC timely action of de-recognising both factions before the close of the window for nominating candidates,” he wrote.

He added that INEC had duly forewarned the party of the danger ahead and

Had opened a window for them to either find a new, risk-free platform or ask for accelerated hearing of the case in court, or politically settle the leadership question in the party quickly.

“To keep blaming imaginary opponents or INEC is purely mischievous: neither APC nor INEC prodded these grown adults and supposedly ‘experienced’ politicians to go and hijack an existing platform without sound legal advice and without properly sorting out every member of the leadership of that existing platform. They say they will proceed with their congresses and convention despite INEC’s decision and the ruling of the Court of Appeal. That is fine by us,” the Minister added.

Kachikwu Warns 2027 Aspirants Against Joining ADC, Says Party in Legal Limbo

The 2023 presidential candidate of the ADC, Dumebi Kachikwu, has warned politicians nursing ambitions for the 2027 general elections to steer clear of the party, declaring that its protracted leadership crisis has rendered it a “nonstarter.”

Reacting to the development, Kachikwu said the ADC had been plunged into a deep legal and structural crisis that could take years to resolve, thereby making it an unreliable platform for electoral contest.

“I regret to inform those seeking to contest in 2027 on the platform of the ADC that the actions of certain individuals have rendered any political aspiration through the party a nonstarter,” he said.

He explained that the party was currently entangled in several legal disputes that may ultimately be decided at the Supreme Court, warning that the uncertainty would cripple its ability to organise congresses, primaries, and other critical pre-election activities.

The former presidential candidate attributed the crisis to what he described as the infiltration of the party by “political heavyweights” who allegedly moved into the ADC after unsuccessful attempts to secure alternative platforms.

According to him, the leadership tussle was triggered by efforts to take over the party structure through irregular means, a situation he said has now backfired following INEC’s refusal to recognise any faction.

Kachikwu also alleged that there were plans by the disputed leadership to commercialise party structures, including a steep increase in the cost of nomination forms, which he argued would alienate grassroots members.

He maintained that the unfolding crisis should serve as a cautionary tale for politicians who frequently switch party affiliations without clear ideological direction.

While dismissing concerns that the ADC’s troubles could strengthen the dominance of the ruling APC, Kachikwu noted that several other political parties remain viable platforms for aspirants.

“There are many other parties—PDP, Labour Party, NNPP, SDP, APGA, among others. So why insist on a platform that is clearly embroiled in legal uncertainty?” he queried.