A fresh confrontation has erupted between the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the African Democratic Congress (ADC), with both sides trading accusations over legality, neutrality, and the future of Nigeria’s democracy ahead of the 2027 general elections.
INEC has firmly rejected calls for the removal of its Chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan, describing such demands as unconstitutional and a direct threat to the independence of the electoral body. The Commission’s position follows a strong demand by the ADC for the chairman’s sack over alleged partisan conduct.
The ADC, through its National Chairman, David Mark, had at a world press conference in Abuja accused INEC of working in concert with the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) to weaken opposition parties and pave the way for a one-party state.
Mark specifically alleged that recent actions by the Commission, including the removal of names of key ADC officials from its portal, were part of a broader strategy to undermine opposition voices ahead of 2027.
But in a swift response, INEC, in a statement signed by its Chief Press Secretary, Adedayo Oketola, maintained that its actions were strictly guided by the Constitution and a subsisting Court of Appeal judgment.
“The Chairman does not hold office at the pleasure of any political party or interest group. Any call for removal outside the established constitutional process is not only a distraction but a direct assault on the independence of the nation’s electoral umpire,” the Commission stated.
INEC explained that its decision to delist certain ADC leaders was taken to comply with a court order directing parties to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the case before the Federal High Court.
The Commission noted that failure to adhere to such orders had previously led to the removal of elected officials in states like Zamfara and Plateau, stressing that it would not repeat such mistakes.
It further clarified that it was bound by a preservative order restraining it from taking actions that could prejudice ongoing legal proceedings, including monitoring congresses or conventions linked to the disputed ADC leadership.
Citing Sections 157 and 287(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), INEC insisted that its leadership could only be removed through constitutional processes and that all authorities are mandated to obey and enforce judgments of the Court of Appeal.
However, the ADC dismissed INEC’s explanations, accusing the Commission of misinterpreting the legal doctrine of status quo ante bellum to justify what it described as “unlawful interference” in the party’s internal affairs.
Mark argued that INEC’s actions had effectively created a leadership vacuum within the party, contrary to established legal principles.
“There was no time that the ADC did not have a duly constituted leadership. What INEC has done is to invent a status quo that never existed,” he said.
The ADC leadership crisis dates back to 2025, following the emergence of a new National Working Committee led by Mark after a National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting held on July 29, 2025, which was monitored by INEC officials.
According to Mark, the Commission subsequently recognised and uploaded the new leadership on September 9, 2025, before reversing course following a suit filed by a former party official.
The dispute has since escalated into multiple court cases, with rival factions laying claim to the party’s leadership.
Mark alleged that INEC’s latest move was not only in contempt of the Court of Appeal but also part of a calculated attempt to weaken opposition parties and tilt the political landscape in favour of the ruling party.
“The agenda is clear: to create a situation where, in 2027, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu emerges as the only viable option,” he said, citing worsening economic hardship and insecurity as factors that could influence voter decisions.
He further warned that INEC’s actions could undermine the ADC’s participation in upcoming off-cycle governorship elections in Ekiti and Osun states, as well as disrupt its scheduled congresses and national convention in April 2026.
While insisting that INEC’s presence is not a legal requirement for party activities, Mark declared that the ADC would proceed with its programmes as planned.
“We demand the immediate resignation or sack of the INEC Chairman and all National Commissioners. We no longer have confidence in them to conduct credible elections,” he added.
Meanwhile, INEC has rejected allegations of bias, insisting that it remains a neutral regulator committed to strengthening Nigeria’s multi-party democracy. It pointed to the recent registration of additional political parties, bringing the total number to 22, as evidence of its commitment to expanding democratic space.
The Commission also cautioned against attempts to politicise its planned nationwide voter revalidation exercise, describing it as a routine administrative audit aimed at improving the integrity of the national voter register.
INEC reaffirmed its focus on preparations for the Ekiti governorship election scheduled for June 2026 and the Osun poll in August 2026, stating that it would not be distracted by what it termed unfounded allegations.
“Our allegiance remains solely to the Constitution and the will of the Nigerian people,” the Commission said.
As tensions persist, observers warn that the unfolding dispute between the electoral umpire and a major opposition party could have far-reaching implications for Nigeria’s democratic process if not carefully managed.
