The Independent National Electoral Commission announced that it would no longer recognise the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) under the chairmanship of David Mark and the national secretary, Rauf Aregbesola. The commission also announced that the names of both Mark and Aregbesola have been removed from its portal. INEC cited the ongoing legal dispute between the Mark-led leadership of the party and Nafiu Bala Gombe, who wants the commission to declare him the party’s chairman. INEC stated that it won’t recognise either of the factions as the legitimate leader of the party and will not monitor the congresses and conventions of the party. The electoral umpire said its action and decision are influenced by the latest ruling of the appellate Court for the parties to the suit to maintain status ante bellum.
The decision of INEC stunned many keen watchers of Nigeria’s political space, so much so that even some members of the ruling party opined that the commission’s decision amounts to regulatory overreach and that there is more to the development than meets the eye. What made INEC’s decision disconcerting for many is the fact that the commission was involved in every internal political party arrangement and mechanism that produced the Mark-led leadership of the ADC and attested to the smooth, proper, legal and meticulous process of change of leadership.
Also, the decision of INEC comes across as an usurpation of the responsibility of the judiciary regardless of the justification and legal arguments it gave. Also, the order of the appeal court asking the concerned party to maintain the status quo was issued on March 12 but the commission decided to act on it by unilaterally interpreting the judgement how he deemed fit without recourse to the appellate Court.
Background of the crisis
On July 29th 2025, the ADC had a NEC meeting and at the meeting, it was agreed that the National Working Committee of the party should be dissolved. The NEC also ratified a caretaker committee to take over the affairs of the party, with David Mark, as the National Chairman; Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as the National Secretary, and others who have since been serving as officers of the party. INEC was present to monitor the proceedings. A formal report of the resolution was sent to INEC and the electoral body uploaded the names of the newly appointed NWC members on its portal.
According to the party, the man who is at the centre of the leadership imbroglio, Nafiu Bala, who was one of the Deputy National Chairmen of the party before the Mark-led leadership came on board, resigned his position on 17th May, 2025. His resignation letter was also transmitted to INEC on the 12th of August, 2025. However, four months after his resignation on September 2nd, 2025, he approached the Federal High Court seeking to be recognised as the Chairman of the ADC. The High Court subsequently asked the ADC to come forward and show cause why the prayer of Nafiu Bala should not be granted.
However, the ADC approached the Court of Appeal to challenge the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain Nafiu Bala’s suit. In rejecting the appeal, the Court of Appeal ordered the parties including INEC to maintain the status quo ante bellum. After this ruling on March 12th, 2026, the electoral umpire did not act on the ruling until April 1, less than two weeks before the commencement of the party’s congresses and conventions. Nafiu Bala’s lawyers had demanded that INEC recognise him as the new chairman, or to de-recognise Aregbesola and Mark as the secretary and chairman respectively, in a bizarre and curious interpretation of what constitutes status quo ante bellum, INEC chose to go with the latter.
What lawyers and legal experts are saying
The development has sparked outrage among Nigerians and elicited mixed reactions from legal practitioners in the country. While some lawyers believe that the ADC was the architect of its own travails as its decision to approach the appellate Court only created the perfect condition for those who had been looking for ways to undermine and destabilise the party to carry out their nefarious objectives. Others argue that the court disputes do not give INEC the unilateral power to change the leadership of the ADC irrespective of how the commission chose to interpret the status quo ante bellum ruling.
Reacting to the development, human rights lawyer, Festus Ogun Section noted that “83(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 expressly states that “no Court in Nigeria shall entertain jurisdiction over any suit or matter about the internal affairs of a political party”. Yet, court orders are being weaponised to destabilise ADC opposition leadership.”
Sharing his perspective on INEC’s decision, Inibehe Effiong asserted that there is every reason to believe that there are despicable plots to frustrate the conduct of credible elections in 2027.
He said “From what is publicly available, all the Executives of the ADC resigned to allow David Mark and Aregbesola to emerge as the National Chairman and the National Secretary respectively.
The man who took the case to the court, Nafiu Gombe, claims that he did not resign as Deputy National Chairman, and that he ought to have automatically assumed the position of National Chairman “in line with the Party’s Constitution”.
Interestingly, the ADC held a National Executive Committee where the party ratified its new leadership led by Mark. So, what’s the controversy here? Is the dispute over the leadership of a political party no longer the internal affairs of the political party? It used to be the law that issues of political party leadership are non-justiciable, or forum domesticum. A Party’s NEC has the authority to decide who should lead the party.
If the ADC says they want another person to assume that role instead of the Deputy National Chairman, can the Court compel the same Party to submit to its Deputy? Is this dispute justiciable? Also, the Court of Appeal said the parties should maintain the status quo ante bellum. This means the state of affairs before the suit was filed in the Federal High Court by the Claimant. Before the suit, who was the Chairman of the Party? Was it not David Mark?
Is this INEC saying that the Order of the Court of Appeal implies that there should be a leadership vacuum in the ADC until the case is determined by the Federal High Court? Whose script is this INEC playing? It seems that the ruling party, which prides itself on having over thirty governors in its fold, is so scared of a fair contest. If it is the desire of INEC for Bola Tinubu to contest as a sole candidate – unopposed, in 2027, let the Commission say so publicly. It will save the country the billions of Naira budgeted for the ‘presidential election’.”
On his part, Opeyemi Bodunde believes INEC’s decision to discontinue the recognition of Mark-led leadership was a reasonable and logical decision and that the commission did not err in any way.
He pointed out that there was no ambiguity or vagueness of any form in the ruling of the appeal court that the existing status quo before Nafiu approached the High Court should be maintained.
He said “Status quo ante bellum means a strict reversion to, and preservation of, the state of affairs as it existed before 2nd September 2025, when the suit was instituted. It is a binding command prohibiting any alteration of the res.
Against this legal backdrop, INEC’s position is not discretionary, it is compelled by law. Faced with conflicting demands from both factions, the Commission is bound by the subsisting order of the court, which imposes a superior legal obligation.
“Accordingly, INEC has taken the only lawful course: it has refused to recognise any faction of the ADC, declined to monitor or participate in party activities, and moved to remove names uploaded after the institution of the suit. Any contrary step would amount to a direct violation of a binding judgment of the Court of Appeal and a grave affront to judicial authority.
“The law remains trite: no party can, by unilateral action, overreach the court. Until the Federal High Court determines the substantive dispute, any purported leadership outside the pre-dispute structure is a nullity, void, ineffectual, and dead on arrival.”
Lawyer and litigator, A. A Badmus opined that “At the trial court, we have many applications that are still pending, including POs. The trial Judge, Nwite J, gave an interlocutory order of showing cause why the interim order suspending recognition of Sen. David Mark that should not be made. One of the parties appealed that order, to the CA Abuja.
“When the appeal was entered, Nwite’s hands were tied and he directed the parties to take their fight to the CA. At the CA, the appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, SUO MOTU, after the judgment, and without any application from ANY of the parties, ordered status quo.
“So what is the status quo?
Simple and basic knowledge of the status quo is that David Mark-led NWC IS the interim leadership. That was the position in the trial court and at the CA. There’s also now an appeal at the Supreme Court against the judgment of the CA with a motion for a stay. For INEC to claim it’s now obeying an order of court that’s pending appeal at the APEX COURT is clearly mischief. But well, you know the rest.”
The implications of INEC’s interpretation of the Appeal Court ruling.
Whatever the case may be, the truth is INEC cannot arrogate to itself the power to unilaterally interpret a court ruling without any form of judicial assistance. Even a non-legal person knows that maintaining the status quo in this instance would be sticking to the ways things were before Nafiu approached the high court. There is no judicial precedent or legal interpretation that would strongly support the decision of INEC. What this in turn does is to open the commission up to needless scrutiny and avoidable suspicion that raises questions about its neutralityyyyyyy and objectivity.
On Thursday, the ADC held a world conference to address INEC’s decision to derecognise the leadership of the party. At the conference, the party said it would proceed with its scheduled congresses and convention even if INEC won’t be present to monitor them. If ADC should go ahead with the congresses and convention without a conclusive hearing of and adjudication on Nafiu’s suit at the High Court and without INEC to monitor them, they will be rendered invalid which will then mean the party won’t be able to participate in any election let alone field candidate.
To navigate this troubled water, ADC will have apply for the expedited hearing of Nafiu Bala’s suit at the High Court and fervently hope for a pleasing and favourable outcome which should ordinarily be the case if the party argue its case intelligently and logically. Push for the conclusion of the suit within two weeks; It’s a suit about the defence of the autonomy of political parties and democracy.
