News Editor
By Ibrahim Nasiru
The recent directive from the Court of Appeal to maintain the status quo ante bellum has not settled the crisis within the African Democratic Congress (ADC); instead, it has ignited a fierce debate over the limits of regulatory power and the survival of Nigeria’s opposition. While the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) claims its hands are tied by a “preservatory order,” its rigid interpretation appears less like neutral regulation and more like an administrative strangulation of a major opposition platform.
By unilaterally rolling back the party’s leadership to September 2, 2025—the date the original lawsuit was filed—INEC has effectively decapitated the ADC. This is not merely a legal interpretation; it is a “wilful distortion” that creates a leadership vacuum where none should exist. Critics, including constitutional lawyers, argue that INEC, under Chairman Prof. Joash Amupitan, has overstepped its bounds by playing judge and jury, defining the “start of hostilities” (bellum) without a specific court mandate to remove sitting officials.
The timing of this “freeze” is devastating for the opposition’s momentum. As the ADC positions itself as a cornerstone for a potential 2027 mega-coalition involving figures like Peter Obi and Atiku Abubakar, INEC’s decision to delist the Senator David Mark-led National Working Committee (NWC) locks the party’s doors. Under the Electoral Act 2026, a party without recognized leadership cannot validly hold congresses or submit candidates. By “preserving” a past state, INEC is effectively cancelling the ADC’s future, threatening its participation in the upcoming Ekiti and Osun governorship elections.
INEC’s defence—that it is avoiding “judicial disasters” like those seen in Zamfara—is a thin veil for institutional overreach. Instead of allowing internal democratic processes to resolve friction, INEC has opted for a total shutdown. This sets a dangerous precedent: any fringe faction can now trigger a lawsuit to have the electoral umpire “delete” a sitting leadership, leaving a party “like a flock of sheep without a shepherd.” The ADC has already countered that the challenger, Nafiu Bala Gombe, had resigned months before filing his suit, a fact they claim INEC is conveniently ignoring. Despite the de-recognition, the ADC has vowed to proceed with its April 14 national convention, setting the stage for a high-stakes legal “point of no return.”
Nigeria’s democracy cannot survive an umpire that uses “neutrality” as a weapon of delay. The situation demands a definitive ruling that identifies the exact date the leadership dispute began. Without this, the party remains paralyzed, unable to prepare for the 2027 elections while the courts debate its past. If the Federal High Court in Abuja does not act with urgency to clarify this “status quo,” it won’t just be the ADC that loses—it will be the very idea of a competitive, multi-party democracy in Nigeria.
Ibrahim Nasiru
A Public Affairs Analyst writes from Abuja
