By Our Correspondents
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) are trading blame over INEC’s withdrawal of recognition from the opposition party’s National Working Committee (NWC) led by former Senate President David Mark.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) announced on April 1 that it would no longer recognise any faction of the ADC leadership, including the executive headed by Mark as Chairman and Rauf Aregbesola as Secretary.
The commission also declined to recognise a rival faction allegedly led by Nafiu Bala.
INEC’s action came after the Court of Appeal directed all parties in the dispute to maintain the status quo ante bellum — a Latin phrase meaning “the state of things before the war” — while the substantive case proceeds before the Federal High Court.
ADC Accuses INEC of Partisanship
Addressing a world press conference in Abuja on Thursday, David Mark accused INEC of overstepping its legal bounds and doing the bidding of the APC-led government.
Mark insisted that he and Aregbesola were lawfully inaugurated as ADC leaders during a National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting on July 29, 2025. He said INEC officials monitored that meeting, and the commission later uploaded the names of the new NWC members on its website on September 9, 2025.
According to Mark, Nafiu Bala — one of the officials in the dissolved NWC — had resigned his position on May 17, 2025, four months before approaching the court on September 2 to seek recognition as ADC chairman.
“There are no competing claims on the leadership of the ADC,” Mark said. “Nafiu Bala has no locus whatsoever. INEC should have waited for the Court of Appeal to decide this matter. Instead, INEC went ahead to do the bidding of the ruling party.”
Mark demanded the immediate resignation or sack of the INEC Chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan, and all national commissioners. He also warned that the commission would be held responsible for whatever actions or reactions follow its decision.
The ADC said it will proceed with its planned congresses starting April 9 and its convention on April 14, with or without INEC’s attendance.
APC: ADC Is Author of Its Own Fate
The APC quickly dismissed the ADC’s accusations, describing the opposition party as an assembly of confused and desperate politicians.
In a statement signed by National Publicity Secretary Felix Morka, the APC said the ADC was designed to unravel from the start.
“When its factional leadership under the duo of David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola parachuted into the party like thoughtless, planless commandos and hijacked the party in violent violation of its constitutional stipulations regarding leadership succession and in disregard of the rule of law, the ADC set its own date with destiny,” Morka said.
The APC argued that INEC’s decision to de-recognise the Mark-led faction was valid in law, justified in fact, and consistent with democratic practice.
“It is therefore highly escapist and irresponsible for the ADC to blame the APC for its internal woes, of which they are the sole architects,” Morka added.
The APC said a party that cannot fix itself cannot possibly fix Nigeria.
Lawyers Explain the Legal Position
Two Nigerian lawyers have offered detailed explanations of the dispute, pointing to procedural decisions and binding court rulings as the root of the matter.
Public interest lawyer Inibehe Effiong criticised the legal approach taken by the Mark-led faction. He noted that the Federal High Court did not issue any restraining order against the leadership but simply directed that all parties be put on notice — a standard legal step requiring both sides to present their arguments.
Effiong said the appropriate response would have been to contest the case at the trial court rather than file an interlocutory appeal. He described that decision as “unusual” and “untidy.”
Another legal practitioner, Bodunde Opeyemi, traced the dispute to the July 2025 NEC meeting that produced the new executive. He explained that the Court of Appeal’s March 2026 ruling ordering the status quo ante bellum is clear and binding.
“It requires a strict preservation of the state of affairs before the dispute,” Opeyemi said, adding that no party is allowed to take actions that could influence the outcome of the case.
Both lawyers said the electoral commission is legally bound to comply with the court’s directive and cannot take sides while the case is still pending.
What Happens Next
The dispute is expected to remain unresolved until the Federal High Court delivers a final judgment on the substantive case.
Meanwhile, the ADC said it will continue with its party programmes.
Discussion about this post