The African Democratic Congress has rejected claims made by the Independent National Electoral Commission Chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan, during an interview on Arise News, where he warned that proceeding with its congresses and convention could violate existing court orders.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
In a press statement signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, the party described INEC’s position as a “wilful distortion” of the Court of Appeal’s directive to maintain the status quo, which it said amounts to contempt of court.
The 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.
The party stated that it had carefully reviewed the recent interview granted by the INEC Chairman and found it necessary to respond in order to correct several legal and factual misrepresentations.
“While the Commission seeks to present its position as one anchored in law and neutrality, the substance of the Chairman’s own statements reveals a fundamental misapplication of both constitutional principles and judicial directives,” the statement read.
The ADC challenged Amupitan’s assertion that INEC is merely acting within the confines of a multi-party constitutional order.
“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 organize and function,” the party stated.
“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 ADC described the INEC Chairman’s interpretation as “both selective and legally flawed.”
“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 statement read.
“The preservation order, by its nature, is intended to prevent actions that would irreversibly alter the subject matter of litigation, not to paralyze the internal functioning of a political party.”
The party accused Amupitan of making administrative interpretations that fall outside INEC’s mandate.
“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,” the ADC stated.
The ADC challenged INEC’s claim that holding congresses or conventions would render proceedings nugatory.
“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,” the statement read.
“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 party accused INEC of conflating its monitoring function with the validity of party processes.
“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,” the ADC stated.
“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 rejected INEC’s justification of inaction based on conflicting communications from different factions.
“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,” the statement read.
“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.”
The party dismissed the INEC Chairman’s invocation of precedents such as Zamfara as 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,” the ADC stated.
“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.”
The party challenged INEC’s framing of its position as one of caution to avoid future judicial invalidation of elections.
“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 statement read.
“The proper course is to allow parties to act within the law and for courts to adjudicate disputes as they arise.”
The ADC warned that INEC’s interpretation risks setting a dangerous precedent.
“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 party stated.
The ADC concluded by reaffirming its intention to proceed with its planned activities.
“The ADC reiterates that its right to organize congresses and hold its national convention is constitutionally guaranteed and has not been lawfully suspended by any court,” the statement read.
“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 ADC’s strongly-worded response to INEC Chairman Amupitan sets the stage for a direct confrontation between the opposition party and the electoral commission.
The party’s argument centres on a key legal distinction: that preservation orders are meant to prevent irreversible alterations to the subject matter of litigation, not to paralyse a political party’s internal functioning.
By challenging INEC’s interpretation of status quo ante bellum and accusing the Chairman of making administrative determinations that only courts are empowered to make, the ADC is essentially arguing that INEC has exceeded its constitutional mandate.
The accusation that Amupitan is acting in contempt of court by distorting the Court of Appeal’s directive is a serious allegation that could have legal implications if the party decides to pursue it.
For INEC, the ADC’s decision to proceed with its congresses and convention despite warnings creates a difficult situation. If the party proceeds without INEC monitoring, any candidates nominated through such processes may face legal challenges.
For the ADC, proceeding carries risks — but so does inaction, given the approaching 2027 electoral calendar.
The dispute ultimately highlights the tension between administrative caution and democratic continuity, with both sides claiming to be acting in accordance with the law while accusing the other of overreach.
The courts will likely have the final say on whether the ADC’s congresses and convention are valid — but by then, the political consequences may already be irreversible.
“Order Your Copy Now” — Basil Momodu, Esq. Unveils Second Edition Of His Book, "Civil Procedure In Nigeria"
According to the learned author, Basil Momodu Esq. "Law review is a continuum. We will continue to track changes in the law to enrich future editions." Recommended Booksellers: Lagos: 08033855230, Abuja: 08035991379, and others.
_______________________________________________________________________
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________ “Bridging Theory And Courtroom Practice” — Hagler Sunny Okorie, Nathaniel Ngozi Ikeocha Unveil ‘Functional’ Tort Law Book For Nigerian Legal System
The book, titled The Law of Torts in Nigeria: A Functional Approach, authored by Professor Hagler Sunny Okorie Ph.D and Ikeocha, Nathaniel Ngozi Esq, offers law students, practitioners, and academics a comprehensive guide to understanding and applying tort law in Nigerian courts. Interested buyers can place orders via the following contact numbers: 08028636615, 08037667945, 08032253813, or +234 902 196 2209.
______________________________________________________________________
“Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
