𝗙𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗮: 𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗖 𝗪𝗮𝘀 𝗥𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗦𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝗗𝗖 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗹

Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, has thrown his weight behind the Independent National Electoral Commission’s decision to stay neutral in the ongoing Supreme Court appeal filed by the African Democratic Congress (ADC), insisting that the commission acted within the bounds of the law.

In a statement released on Wednesday, Falana confirmed that INEC did not file any legal process to either support or oppose the ADC’s appeal, which has already been heard by the apex court and is now awaiting judgment.

According to Falana, the commission’s refusal to take sides reflects its constitutional obligation to remain neutral, particularly in matters arising from internal party disputes.

He explained: “It has been confirmed that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) did not file any process to either support or counter the appeal of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) at the Supreme Court.”

He added: “The decision of the INEC not to take sides in the ADC appeal that has been heard and fixed for judgment by the Supreme Court is in line with the law which requires the body to maintain neutrality in all intra party feuds.”

To justify INEC’s stance, the senior lawyer invoked the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in the case of Attorney-General of the Federation v Atiku Abubakar (2007). He recalled that the late Justice Pius Aderemi, in delivering that judgment, criticised both INEC and the Nigeria Police Force for actions that were perceived as partisan.

Quoting from that ruling, Falana noted the court’s firm position: “In the performance of its duty, the Nigeria Police Force must manifestly demonstrate impartiality. It must not lean to one side against the other. It must be apolitical. It must not take part in any disputation which has political coloration.”

The judgment further emphasised that INEC must never place itself in a position where it could be accused of favouring one party over another. The court had stated: “INEC must never by act of omission or commission place itself in a position where imputations of partiality in favour of one party against another one will be levelled against it. Neutrality must be the watch word of the body, it must always remain fair and focused.”

Falana also recalled that the Supreme Court, in that same 2007 case, condemned both institutions for actions that could erode public trust. He quoted the court as saying: “A situation where both of them (the Inspector General of Police and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC) appeal in the instant case is very much in bad taste.”

The judgment added: “They have both thrown the quality of impartiality and fairness which they must possess to the winds. Their acts are capable of eroding the public confidence in them. Unknown to them, they may be said, by the public, to be biased and therefore not worthy to be regarded as impartial umpires. This trend must not repeat itself for the good of the nation. It is a sour taste.”

Relying on that precedent, Falana maintained that INEC’s current posture in the ADC matter is entirely consistent with the Supreme Court’s directive. He argued that the commission’s behaviour should now serve as a standard for future electoral conduct.

“In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the Atiku Abubakar’s case above, the Independent National Electoral Commission should henceforth be an independent umpire in the conduct of elections and demonstrate impartiality in intra-party feuds,” he said.

The ADC appeal, which has already been argued before the Supreme Court, is now awaiting judgment. The case stems from a protracted leadership crisis within the party, triggered by the resignation of former chairman Ralph Nwosu. Following his exit, a caretaker committee led by former Senate President David Mark claimed control of the party, while Nafiu Bala, a former deputy national chairman, insisted he never resigned and declared himself the rightful leader.

The Federal High Court had declined to stop Bala from acting as chairman, and in March 2026, the Court of Appeal ordered both factions to maintain the status quo ante bellum, effectively freezing the party’s leadership until the matter is resolved. Mark’s faction subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.

In line with its neutral stance, INEC recently announced it would not recognise either faction, adding that it would refrain from monitoring any ADC meetings, congresses, or conventions until the Supreme Court delivers its final judgment. That decision leaves the party without any officially recognised leadership, a situation that could complicate its preparations for the 2027 general elections.