The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has strongly criticised the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Joash Amupitan, accusing him of misrepresenting legal principles and overstepping constitutional boundaries in his handling of the party’s leadership dispute.
In a statement dated April 13, 2026, the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, said the commission’s position, as expressed in a recent interview by its chairman, raises serious concerns about neutrality and adherence to the law.
While INEC has maintained that it is operating within a multi-party constitutional framework, the ADC argued that the real issue lies in whether the commission’s actions are undermining opposition parties in practice.
“The question before Nigerians is not whether Nigeria remains a multi-party state in theory, but whether the actions of INEC in practice are weakening the ability of opposition parties to freely organise and function,” Abdullahi stated.
On the contentious interpretation of the Court of Appeal’s directive, the party faulted INEC’s reliance on the doctrine of status quo ante bellum, describing it as selective and legally flawed.
“The preservation order is meant to prevent irreversible actions, not to paralyse the internal functioning of a political party,” he said, adding that INEC lacks the authority to determine what constitutes the “status quo.”
“That determination lies strictly within the jurisdiction of the courts, not the Commission.”
The ADC also rejected claims that holding party congresses or conventions would undermine ongoing legal proceedings.
“Internal party processes conducted in line with the party’s constitution and the Electoral Act do not extinguish or prejudice pending judicial proceedings,” Abdullahi argued.
“No explicit court order has prohibited the ADC from conducting its congresses or convention.”
The party further accused INEC of misinterpreting its statutory role by suggesting it could withhold legitimacy from party activities through its monitoring function.
“A party’s decision to proceed with its internal processes does not depend on INEC’s participation. By conflating its monitoring role with validity, INEC is assuming a veto power it does not possess,” the statement read.
Addressing INEC’s reference to internal disputes within the ADC, Abdullahi insisted that such disagreements do not justify administrative interference.
“The existence of internal disputes does not suspend a political party’s constitutional rights. INEC’s duty is to remain neutral, not to freeze party activities.”
He also dismissed comparisons with past electoral cases, including precedents cited by the commission, describing them as irrelevant to the current situation.
“Pre-emptively warning of hypothetical judicial consequences amounts to speculation and cannot serve as a legal basis to restrict lawful party activities,” he said.
The ADC concluded by reaffirming its right to carry out its internal processes without interference.
“Our right to organise congresses and hold our national convention is constitutionally guaranteed and has not been lawfully suspended by any court,” Abdullahi declared.
“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.”
