The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has accused the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of violating a directive of the Court of Appeal and acting in a partisan manner in the ongoing leadership dispute within the party.
The party’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, made the allegation on Thursday during an appearance on ARISE Television’s Morning Show, where he criticised the electoral commission for what he described as interference in the internal affairs of the opposition party.
Abdullahi said INEC’s actions in the dispute amount to contempt of court and could undermine confidence in the electoral process ahead of the 2027 general elections.
“What INEC has done effectively is to violate the directive of the Appeal Court, and that is criminal. If you are talking about contempt, that is what INEC has done,” he said.
The dispute follows INEC’s decision to remove the names of former Senate President David Mark and former Osun State governor Rauf Aregbesola as National Chairman and National Secretary of the ADC from its official portal.
INEC, through its National Commissioner and Chairman of the Information and Voter Education Committee, Mohammed Haruna, said the action was taken in compliance with a court order directing the commission to maintain the status quo pending the determination of a suit filed by a factional National Chairman of the party, Nafiu Bala.
Bala had approached the court to challenge the legality of the leadership arrangement that produced Mark as national chairman.
However, Abdullahi insisted that Bala no longer has the legal standing to act on behalf of the party, arguing that he had earlier resigned and that the executive committee he belonged to had already been dissolved.
According to him, Bala resigned as one of the six deputy national chairmen of the party on May 17, 2025, and INEC was formally notified of the development on August 12 of the same year.
“At the time the coalition joined ADC, Nafiu Gombe had resigned his position as one of the six deputy chairmen of the party on May 17, and INEC was duly notified. On August 12, 2025, INEC received notice of this resignation,” Abdullahi said.
He further explained that the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) met in Abuja on July 29, 2025, in a meeting attended by INEC officials, where a resolution was reached to hand over the leadership of the party to David Mark.
Abdullahi noted that Bala only filed his suit on September 2, arguing that the “status quo” referenced in the Court of Appeal ruling should therefore reflect the situation after the NEC meeting.
“The Appeal Court’s decision to return to status quo refers to the NEC decision of July 29,” he said.
The ADC spokesman questioned why INEC would recognise actions initiated by Bala despite allegedly being aware of his resignation.
“As of July 17, he was no longer an official of the party, and INEC knew this. So on what basis is INEC recognising his actions?” Abdullahi asked.
He maintained that leadership disputes within political parties are internal matters that should be resolved through party structures.
“It is a settled matter in court that the issue of leadership is wholly an internal affair of political parties, and the NEC is the next most senior organ of the party after the convention,” he said.
Abdullahi also alleged that the situation was part of a broader attempt to weaken opposition parties ahead of the 2027 elections.
“The most important point today is that all this is part of an orchestration by the ruling party to destabilise the opposition,” he said.
Despite the dispute, Abdullahi said the party would proceed with its planned congresses and convention.
“We have given INEC 21 days’ notice. They have acknowledged it. Whether they come to monitor our congresses or not, we will continue with our convention,” he said.
INEC had earlier announced that it would suspend recognition of all factions within the ADC pending the determination of the substantive suit before the Federal High Court. However, the ADC insists that the commission’s actions amount to interference in its internal affairs and a breach of the Appeal Court’s directive to maintain the status quo.
Leave a Reply