ADC versus INEC: Political intrigue ad infinitum, By Magnus Onyibe

The current imbroglio between the African Democratic Congress (ADC), now positioned as Nigeria’s leading opposition party, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the nation’s electoral umpire, did not erupt overnight. The crisis reached a boiling point when ADC leaders stormed INEC’s office on April 8th, but the tension had long been brewing.

Although the embattled ADC has accused the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) of fueling the internal fire consuming the party, such an explanation appears overly simplistic. The roots of the conflict are far more complex and multifaceted.

The present turmoil is the cumulative outcome of several seemingly minor issues that were initially dismissed as inconsequential. These oversights by key stakeholders — the ADC, the National Assembly, INEC, the judiciary, the presidency, and the broader political class — have now snowballed into a storm threatening the credibility of the 2027 general elections.

In my assessment, responsibility for the crisis is widely shared. The logjam obstructing Nigeria’s democratic progress stems from both actions and inactions across the political spectrum.

Advertisement

Beginning with the ADC, which has called for the resignation of the INEC chairman over the delisting of its leadership from the commission’s website, there are serious questions about the party’s internal processes. It appears the new leadership may have failed to conduct thorough due diligence before consolidating control of the party structure.

By recognizing and negotiating primarily with the Ralf Nwosu faction, the new leaders seemingly overlooked other critical stakeholders whose dissent has now proved consequential. The emergence of the Nafiu Bala Gombe faction has cast doubt on the legitimacy of the appointments of David Mark as chairman and Rauf Aregbesola to a leadership role. This development might have been avoided had all internal interests been properly reconciled beforehand.

In this regard, the ADC’s legal team must shoulder part of the blame for failing to close evident loopholes. The situation is akin to purchasing a property without discovering an existing lien because proper searches were not conducted at the appropriate land registry.

How could the effective “acquisition” of a political party proceed without securing the alignment and verified consent of all critical stakeholders? In mergers and acquisitions, where shareholders — known or unknown — fail to sign off due to disputes, transactions are typically deemed null and void. The apparent procedural lapses raise troubling questions about the quality of leadership and internal governance within the ADC.

Equally concerning is the party’s inability to contain the grievances of the Nafiu Gombe faction before the dispute spirals out of control. What began as manageable internal dissent has now become an existential threat.

If a party struggles to manage its internal crises, doubts inevitably arise about its capacity to govern effectively at any level — local, state, or national. For a political platform seeking to unseat the ruling APC at the federal level, the inability to resolve internal discord is not merely embarrassing; it is disqualifying.

Further complicating matters is the fact that the aggrieved Nafiu Gombe had approached the court as far back as last year and secured a favorable High Court judgment. In September, David Mark reportedly challenged that ruling at the Court of Appeal. By March 12 this year, another judgment was delivered — which the ADC has since interpreted as being in its favor.

However, the roughly seven to eight months between the High Court and Appeal Court judgments should have provided ample time for a politically savvy leadership and competent legal team to resolve the dispute amicably. Instead, the party allowed the crisis to fester. This apparent complacency reinforces the view that the ADC has, to a large extent, become the architect of its own misfortune.

That said, the ADC is not alone in bearing responsibility for the political bind in which Nigeria now finds itself. The National Assembly of Nigeria (NASS) must also share in the blame, particularly for repealing and re-enacting the Electoral Act in early 2026 without sufficiently sealing critical loopholes.

The revised Electoral Act 2026 appears inadequately fortified against exploitation by opportunistic politicians who weaponize the courts for nuisance value rather than genuine justice. Given Nigeria’s history — where the fate of elections has often been determined more by courtrooms than polling booths — lawmakers ought to have anticipated and blocked such vulnerabilities. Instead, gaps remain, and they are now being exploited, much like in the internal crisis within the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

Having amended the electoral framework multiple times in the past decade, the legislature can not escape culpability in the unfolding logjam. My intention here is to urge NASS to reflect on where it metaphorically “dropped the ball.”

For instance, in shortening the timelines between party primaries, conventions, and the commencement of campaigns, lawmakers may not have sufficiently considered the practical constraints this would impose. The compressed schedule now appears to be pushing parties like the ADC into open confrontation with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), as they struggle to organize congresses and conventions under regulatory supervision while still operating under judicial and administrative sanctions.

As many legal and public policy experts would agree, laws that are unrealistic or detached from operational realities are inherently difficult to enforce. When legislation fails to align with political and institutional realities, it risks breeding non-compliance and unintended consequences. The current standoff — with the ADC proceeding with activities despite INEC’s regulatory objections — illustrates this danger.

The ADC’s apparent defiance stems from a fear of exclusion from the 2027 elections, reminiscent of past scenarios such as the Zamfara episode, which INEC’s chairman has cited in justifying the derecognition of certain ADC factional leaders, including David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola.

The looming question is whether Nigeria could once again face circumstances that necessitate invoking the Doctrine of Necessity to preserve democratic participation. The precedent exists. During the constitutional crisis following the incapacitation of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua in 2010 — when he was hospitalised in Saudi Arabia without formally transferring power — Nigeria confronted a dangerous leadership vacuum. It was only through the invocation of the Doctrine of Necessity, under the Senate presidency of David Mark, that Vice President Goodluck Jonathan was empowered to act as president.

If opposition parties, due to legal entanglements and time constraints, fail to meet regulatory conditions to field candidates — leaving only the APC to contest in 2027, or prompting an opposition boycott — the legitimacy of the election itself could be called into question.

Despite the gathering storm, there may yet be a silver lining. The ADC’s earlier hesitation to approach the Supreme Court appeared linked to timing constraints following the Appeal Court’s judgment and INEC’s regulatory deadlines. It is, therefore, a welcome development that the party has now sought redress at the apex court.

The ADC seems to recognise that while courts generally refrain from interfering in internal party affairs, that principle is not absolute. Where individual rights are allegedly infringed, judicial intervention remains permissible.

One hopes that the Supreme Court will clarify the legal ambiguities — particularly regarding INEC’s reliance on the term status quo ante bellum without sufficient interpretative guidance. Critics argue that the commission’s chairman may have overstepped his boundary by appearing to act as both regulator and adjudicator rather than seeking judicial clarification where uncertainty existed.

More broadly, the episode raises renewed concerns about the criteria and process for appointing the INEC chairman. Some observers contend that Nigeria experienced fewer controversies when retired jurists headed the electoral body compared to periods when academics occupied the role.

Ultimately, a significant portion of responsibility rests with both the legislature and the executive branch, which approves presidential nominations for the INEC chairmanship. The current crisis reopens the debate on how electoral umpires are selected — a matter that demands urgent and thoughtful reconsideration.

The judiciary, too, can not be exempted from the blame. As the constitutional interpreter of the law, it bears the solemn responsibility of clarifying legislation enacted by lawmakers. Yet, in the ADC versus INEC dispute, the court’s judgment appears to have been couched in language open to multiple interpretations, thereby creating further ambiguity rather than certainty.

The lack of clarity has necessitated either a return to court for interpretation or, regrettably, a resort to self-help — as reflected in the recent protest by leaders of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), who stormed the headquarters of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) demanding the resignation of its chairman.

Since Nigeria’s return to multiparty democracy in 1999, politicians and citizens alike have consistently been urged not to take the law into their own hands but to seek judicial redress in resolving disputes. To a significant extent, that counsel has been heeded. Unlike earlier eras, when violence was frequently deployed as a political tool, aggrieved actors have largely turned to the courts.

History reminds us why this shift was necessary. The violent “wetie” episodes in the old Western Region — particularly the clashes following the disputed 1983 Ondo State governorship election between supporters of Akin Omoboriowo of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) and incumbent Governor Michael Ajasin of the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) — led to widespread arson, killings, and a breakdown of law and order. Allegations of electoral malpractice and Omoboriowo’s defection from UPN to NPN intensified tensions, culminating in tragic consequences.

Against that historical backdrop, the current posture of some ADC leaders is troubling. Rather than relying solely on judicial remedies — as has become the norm, and as reflected in the now-common political refrain, “go to court” — the party initially appeared to pivot toward protest as a form of pressure. Although the demonstration at INEC’s office remained peaceful and did not degenerate into violence, it nonetheless signals a worrisome shift.

In plain terms, resorting to public protest suggests that confidence in the judiciary as an impartial arbiter may be eroding among sections of the political class.

This development, while unfortunate, does not arise in a vacuum. Many Nigerian politicians — including figures within both the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the ADC — have long histories within the corridors of power. Over the years, there have been persistent allegations and even public admissions of undue relationships between some politicians and elements within the legal system.

Such perceptions — whether exaggerated or real — have fueled the belief that judicial outcomes may sometimes reflect influence and financial muscle rather than pure legal merit. For opposition parties with comparatively limited access to state power and resources, this perception can breed hesitation and distrust. It may partly explain why the ADC initially appeared reluctant to approach the Supreme Court.

Indeed, concerns about judicial integrity have not gone unacknowledged. Both the current Chief Justice of Nigeria, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, and the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Afam Osigwe, have publicly cautioned against judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties and warned against conduct capable of undermining public confidence in the courts.

One cannot help but ask: was the ADC’s initial reluctance to seek judicial resolution rooted in fear that the outcome might not favour it — especially in a political environment where the ruling APC wields greater institutional and financial influence?

If so, that perception — whether justified or not — is deeply troubling. A democracy can not thrive where litigants doubt the neutrality of its courts.

Although reforms initiated by the Chief Justice and the National Judicial Council have reportedly reduced practices such as forum shopping and conflicting judgments across jurisdictions, which defined politics in Nigeria at the nascent stage ,concerns still linger. Some critics argue that opaque rulings and the frequent deployment of dense Latin expressions, without adequate explanation, only deepen public confusion.

If justice is to command respect, it must not only be done but must be seen to be done — clearly, transparently, and in language accessible to all. Perhaps what Nigeria needs now is not merely judicial pronouncements but judicial clarity.

Several Latin expressions commonly deployed in Nigerian courts — though historically rooted in legal tradition — often generate unnecessary confusion among the public. If clarity and transparency are the hallmarks of justice, then the continued reliance on untranslated Latin phrases deserves reconsideration.

Some of the frequently used expressions include:
• Bona fide – in good faith; genuine
• Prima facie – at first glance; based on initial evidence
• Ex parte – proceedings conducted for one party without notice to the other
• Res ipsa loquitur – the matter speaks for itself
• Status quo – the existing state of affairs

While such phrases are part of legal heritage, their application without immediate and clear English explanation can create avoidable ambiguity. The National Judicial Council (NJC), as the regulatory body of the judiciary, may need to encourage greater linguistic clarity in judgments. If Latin expressions must be used, they should be accompanied by straightforward translations to prevent misinterpretation — especially in politically sensitive cases.

For example:
• Bona fide: “The court held that the buyer acted in good faith, unaware of the property dispute.”
• Prima facie: “There is sufficient initial evidence of negligence to shift the burden of proof.”
• Ex parte: “An injunction was granted urgently without hearing the other party, pending full proceedings.”
• Res ipsa loquitur: “The facts speak for themselves in establishing liability.”
• Status quo: “The existing situation must be maintained until the case is resolved.”

Concerns have been raised that ambiguous judicial language sometimes gives the impression — fairly or unfairly — that litigants are kept in prolonged cycles of legal proceedings, returning repeatedly for clarification for the percuniary benefits of the bar and bench. Such perceptions, whether accurate or not, erode public trust.

Beyond the judiciary, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and its chairman must also share responsibility in the current controversy. By personally interpreting the court’s use of the phrase status quo ante bellum — meaning “the state of affairs before the dispute” — rather than seeking formal judicial clarification, the chairman appeared to assume an interpretative role constitutionally reserved for the courts.

In acting on that interpretation by delisting ADC executives, including David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola, the chairman may have inadvertently placed himself in the position of adjudicator in a matter involving the agency that he leads. Even if well-intentioned, such action risks create the perception of regulatory overreach.

It is possible that professional confidence plays a role. As both a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, and a law professor, he may have believed he was acting on firm legal ground — terra firma, to borrow another Latin phrase meaning “solid ground.” However, once appointed as an electoral umpire, the obligation shifts from academic or legal interpretation to strict procedural neutrality and adherence to institutional protocol.

This episode also highlights the broader risk of appointing a new INEC chairman from outside the commission shortly before major electoral cycles. Having assumed office on october last year only roughly seven (7) months ago, and already navigating sensitive state and national electoral preparations, the chairman may simply be confronting the steep learning curve associated with such a critical role.

Institutional memory matters. Grooming successors from within the commission could help preserve operational continuity and reduce avoidable errors during transitional periods. Electoral management is too delicate to be subjected to steep onboarding risks close to major elections.

Recent developments — including proposals to digitally update the voter register , now suspended and the scheduling of election-related activities during sensitive religious periods, later adjusted — suggest that broader consultation and gradual familiarisation with institutional realities may have been beneficial.But Amupitan did not enjoy such luxury of time the rope.

For these reasons, the executive branch, which appoints the INEC chairman, may need to reassess the administrative framework governing such appointments. Electoral stability depends not only on legal compliance but also on prudent timing and continuity.

As for the presidency, it may serve the institution of INEC better to allow the commission to defend its own actions. Public defense by executive spokespersons risks reinforcing opposition allegations that INEC is not fully independent. Perception, in electoral matters, can be as consequential as reality.

Meanwhile, Nigeria’s political landscape has been shifting since the face-off between ADC and lNEC escalated.
Opposition parties appear to be exploring coalition arrangements to challenge the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). Hence, the former NNPP leader Musa kwakwanso has joined the ranks of ADC even as the factional leader of the PDP , Kabiru Tanimu Turaki, has been seen mingling with members of ADC leadership.
Whether that momentum can alter the trajectory of the 2027 elections remains uncertain.

Critical questions now loom: Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of the ADC? Will party primaries conducted without INEC supervision be deemed valid? These issues weigh heavily not only on politicians but also on politically conscious citizens.

All eyes are, therefore, on the Supreme Court as it prepares to deliver judgment on April 14, coinciding with the ADC’s planned convention — scheduled in defiance of INEC’s regulatory position. The outcome may shape not only the immediate dispute but also the trajectory of Nigeria’s still-maturing democracy.

Coincidentally, the unfolding scenario is similar to what happened leading up to the 1999 transition.

The INEC had initially refused to register the Alliance for Democracy (AD) in late 1998. The reason is that it did not meet the nationwide spread criteria INEC set for party registration. Just like the ADC might fail to qualify for participation in 2027 elections if its primaries conducted without the oversight of INEC renders, it is technically disqualified for the 2027 elections. To qualify, in 1999, a party had to show offices and support in at least two-thirds of Nigeria’s states. AD was seen as a Southwest party and did not clear that bar at first.

This was controversial because the 1999 transition was meant to placate the Southwest after June 12, 1993. So INEC eventually registered AD after pressure and negotiations, but the compromise was the AD/APP joint ticket. Since only one party logo could appear on the ballot, they ran Olu Falae under the APP platform, with Shinkafi from APP as VP.
Since l have proven with facts that the faults are not only emanating from the ADC, but lNEC , NASS, the judiciary, the executiive branch and indeed the entire political class in general, it is not likely that the establishment will screen the ADC out of contention for the 2027 election and make it one horse race.
But what compromises the lNEC would make is the trillion dollar question, which is perhaps as complex as untying the proverbial gorddian knot or decoding the famous Davinchi code.
But one thing that is as constant as the northern star is that from the narrative above is that in Nigeria, political intrigue is ad infinitum.

Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, an alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, a Commonwealth Institute scholar, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos.