A former Director of Voter Education and Publicity with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mr. Oluwole Osaze Uzzi, has faulted the electoral body’s interpretation of the Court of Appeal ruling on the leadership dispute in the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
He specifically said that the law does not envisage that at any given time, there will be no leadership in a party and therefore warned against a situation that could leave a political party without leadership.
While questioning INEC’s position on maintaining the “status quo ante bellum”, Uzzi insisted that there has to be leadership of a political party at all times.
Uzzi, who expressed these concerns when he featured on Arise Television morning programme on Friday, April 3, 2026, said that while he acknowledged the legal competence within INEC, he however insisted the commission’s interpretation of the ruling of the Court of Appeal was questionable.
In the words of Uzzi; “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”.
Uzzi pointedly declared that INEC clearly misinterpreted the recent Court of Appeal ruling by suspending recognition of Senator David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola’s leadership of the ADC.
He said that the Court of Appeal’s directive was limited to preserving the integrity of the ongoing legal process and not to determine leadership within the party.
Uzzi expressed serious concerns over INEC’s decision to withdraw recognition from the David Mark-led leadership of the ADC.
He pointedly said; “I disagree with the conclusions reached by the Commission. 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.
“It simply stated that all parties to the action should refrain from doing anything that would render the likely judgment nugatory,” he noted.
Uzzi, however explained that his views were based on the available order and not the full judgment, saying; “I have not read the whole judgment of the Court of Appeal, but I have read the order of the court. So, I will limit my comments to what is in the public domain”.
He however, noted that the matter before the court remains substantive and unresolved, thus urged caution in public commentary, adding that the judgment came from an interlocutory appeal on jurisdiction.
According to Uzzi; “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. 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.
Uzzi advised that the ADC could continue with its activities within the bounds of the law, saying; “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”.
The former INEC director explained the role of INEC in party conventions, stressing that the presence of the commission is not a legal requirement for validity.
In the words of Uzzi; “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.
“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 explained.
Uzzi also said that calls for the removal of INEC Chairman must follow constitutional procedures, adding that he was not sure that the ADC was asking the President to act outside the law.
He said; Both INEC and all parties must be guided by the law”.
