The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has declared that the reliance on the existence of multiple parties as proof of neutrality by the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Joash Amupitan, does not in any way address the specific conduct under scrutiny.
It also stated that the interpretation advanced by the INEC Chairman stretched judicial directives beyond their meaning and risks setting a dangerous precedent where regulatory caution becomes a tool for democratic suppression.
The ADC which stated these after a critical review of the interview granted by Prof Amupitan, noted that the attempt by Prof Amupitan to define the “status quo” by tracing the controversy to internal party developments in July 2025 is an administrative interpretation that INEC is not empowered to make.
The Party specifically stated that such a determination lies strictly within the jurisdiction of the courts, and not INEC.
The ADC which stated these in a statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, stressed that INEC chairman’s claim that holding congresses or conventions would “render proceedings nugatory” is an overreach. Abdullahi stressed that internal party processes, conducted in line with the party’s constitution and the Electoral Act, do not extinguish or prejudice pending judicial proceedings.
He further said; “On the contrary, democratic continuity within a political party is presumed under the law unless expressly restrained by a competent court. No such explicit order prohibiting congresses or conventions has been cited. “What exists are general preservation directives, which cannot be expanded into a blanket prohibition on party governance,” he explained.
The ADC said it has to respond to Amupitan’s position in order to correct several legal and factual misrepresentations, adding that while INEC seeks to present its position as one anchored in law and neutrality, the substance of the statement of the chairman of the commission, revealed a fundamental misapplication of both constitutional principles and judicial directives.
In the words of Abdullahi; “First, the Chairman’s repeated assertion that INEC is merely acting within the confines of a “multi-party constitutional order” is, with respect, a deflection from the central issue.
“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,” he stated.
The ADC said it has not alleged the abolition of multi-party democracy in form; rather, it raised concerns about actions that, in effect, weaken it.
According to the ADC; “On the issue of the Court of Appeal’s order, the Chairman places heavy reliance on the doctrine of status quo ante bellum, suggesting that it requires a rollback to a particular point in time and a suspension of party activities.
“This interpretation is both selective and legally flawed. 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 said.
While referencing the assertion that INEC is restrained from monitoring congresses due to an injunction, the ADC stressed that it equally exposed a critical misunderstanding of its role, stressing that INEC’s duty to monitor is statutory and triggered upon proper notification.
In the words of the ADC; “A party’s decision to proceed with its internal processes does not depend on INEC’s participation. 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 Chairman also references conflicting communications from different factions within the ADC as justification for inaction. However, the existence of internal disputes does not suspend a political party’s constitutional rights. Indeed, such disputes are commonplace in democratic systems and are routinely resolved without administrative paralysis.
“INEC’s role is not to arbitrate these disputes or to freeze party activities pending their resolution, but to maintain neutrality and allow due process to run its course,” it stated.
Commenting on the invocation of precedents such as Zamfara, the ADC stressed that such a comparison is misplaced, adding that those cases involved clear and established failures to comply with mandatory legal requirements for primaries.
In contrast, the ADC said it has demonstrated its commitment to conducting its processes in strict accordance with its constitution and the Electoral Act.
The ADC further said; “Pre-emptively warning of hypothetical judicial consequences, as the Chairman has done, amounts to speculation and cannot serve as a legal basis to restrict lawful party activities”.
The ADC also said that while Amupitan framed INEC’s position as one of caution to avoid future judicial invalidation of elections, the reasoning cannot justify present overreach, emphasising that the law does not permit administrative bodies to curtail constitutional rights on the basis of speculative future outcomes.
It stressed that the proper course is to allow parties to act within the law and for courts to adjudicate disputes as they arise.
The ADC therefore reiterated that its right to organize congresses and hold its national convention is constitutionally guaranteed and has not been lawfully suspended by any court.
