The African Democratic Congress has sharply criticised the Independent National Electoral Commission, accusing it of misinterpreting court orders and undermining opposition parties, while insisting its planned congresses and convention remain lawful.
Reacting to comments by INEC Chairman, Joash Amupitan, the party said it found it necessary to respond “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 ADC dismissed Amupitan’s repeated reference to Nigeria’s multi-party system as a justification for the commission’s actions, describing it as a diversion.
It stated that, “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 added that it “has not alleged the abolition of multi-party democracy in form; rather, it has raised concerns about actions that, in effect, weaken it,” noting that reliance on the existence of multiple parties “does not address the specific conduct under scrutiny.”
On the Court of Appeal order, the ADC faulted INEC’s reliance on the doctrine of status quo ante bellum, arguing that the interpretation was both selective and incorrect. According to the party, “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.”
It further maintained that the chairman’s attempt to define the “status quo” by linking it to internal party developments from July 2025 was beyond INEC’s authority, stressing that such determinations rest solely with the courts.
The party also rejected the claim that conducting congresses or conventions would “render proceedings nugatory,” describing the position as an overreach. It argued that internal party processes carried out in line with the constitution and Electoral Act do not invalidate pending litigation, adding that “democratic continuity within a political party is presumed under the law unless expressly restrained by a competent court.”
It emphasised that no such explicit order prohibiting its activities had been issued, noting that existing directives are merely general preservation orders and not a blanket restriction on party governance.
Addressing INEC’s stance on monitoring party activities, the ADC said the commission had misunderstood its statutory role. It explained that INEC’s duty to monitor is triggered upon proper notification and does not determine the legality of party processes.
The party warned that “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 also dismissed INEC’s reliance on internal disputes within the party as justification for its position, stating that such disagreements are common in democratic systems and do not suspend constitutional rights. It stressed that INEC’s role is not to arbitrate such disputes or freeze party activities, but to remain neutral while due process runs its course.
On comparisons with past electoral precedents, particularly Zamfara, the party described them as misplaced, noting that those cases involved clear violations of electoral laws.
It insisted that its own processes comply with its constitution and the Electoral Act, warning that “pre-emptively warning of hypothetical judicial consequences amounts to speculation and cannot serve as a legal basis to restrict lawful party activities.”
The party further criticised INEC’s justification that its actions were aimed at preventing future judicial invalidation of elections, arguing that such reasoning cannot excuse present actions. It maintained that “the law does not permit administrative bodies to curtail constitutional rights on the basis of speculative future outcomes,” insisting that the proper approach is to allow lawful activities while courts resolve disputes.
Reaffirming its position, the ADC declared that its right to organise congresses and hold its national convention “is constitutionally guaranteed and has not been lawfully suspended by any court,” warning that INEC’s interpretation risks creating “a dangerous precedent where regulatory caution becomes a tool for democratic suppression.”
