A former Director of Voter Education and Publicity at the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, Oluwole Osaze Uzzi, has disagreed with the commission’s handling of the leadership dispute within the African Democratic Congress (ADC), insisting that the electoral body may have misinterpreted a recent Court of Appeal ruling.
Uzzi made his position known on Friday, April 3, 2026, while speaking on the Arise News Morning Show, where he raised concerns over INEC’s decision to withdraw recognition from factions within the party.
“I disagree with the conclusions reached by the Commission,” Uzzi said. “In INEC’s extrapolation of the Court of Appeal’s order, I have reservations: the court did not instruct INEC to withdraw recognition from either faction.”
He explained that the appellate court’s directive was limited to preserving the integrity of the ongoing legal process and not to determine leadership within the party.
“It simply stated that all parties to the action should refrain from doing anything that would render the likely judgment nugatory,” he added.
Uzzi, however, cautioned that his views were based on the available order and not the full judgment. “I have not read the whole judgment of the Court of Appeal, but I have read the order of the court, so I’ll limit my comments to what is in the public domain,” he clarified.
The former INEC official noted that the matter before the court remains substantive and unresolved, urging caution in public commentary.
“The judgment came from an interlocutory appeal on jurisdiction. The substantive issues are still pending before the court, so we must be careful not to comment in a way that could prejudice the case,” he said.
Despite acknowledging the legal competence within the Commission, Uzzi maintained that the commission’s interpretation was questionable.
“The chairman of the Commission is a respected academic and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, and there is a very vibrant legal department in the Commission. I want to think they carefully studied that judgment. But in its interpretation, I have reservations,” he said.
He further stressed that the court did not mandate the umpire to take sides in the dispute.
“It never said INEC should withdraw recognition from either faction. All it said was that all parties—including INEC—should not do anything to render the court’s eventual judgment nugatory,” he stated.
Advising the ADC, Uzzi suggested that party activities could continue within the bounds of the law.
“If I were advising the ADC, I would suggest they proceed with their plans, provided that doing so does not impinge on the majesty of the court or its ability to deliver justice,” he said.
He also clarified the role of INEC in party conventions, noting that its presence is not a legal requirement for validity.
“Whether INEC attends that convention or not does not necessarily invalidate it. The law only requires that INEC be notified at least 21 days before such events,” he explained.
According to him, INEC’s monitoring role is primarily evidentiary, not determinative.
“The essence of monitoring is to provide an independent report in case of disputes, not to confer or deny legitimacy,” he added.
Uzzi also addressed calls for the removal of INEC leadership, noting that such actions must follow constitutional procedures.
“It is a process, a constitutional process. I’m not sure the ADC is asking the President to act outside the law. Both INEC and all parties must be guided by the law,” he said.
He concluded by warning against any situation that could leave a political party without leadership.
“The law does not envisage that at any given time there will be no leadership in a party. There has to be leadership,” Uzzi stated, questioning INEC’s position on maintaining the “status quo ante bellum” in the ongoing dispute.
