ADC vows to proceed with congresses despite INEC's stance on leadership dispute

It dismissed INEC’s reliance on Nigeria’s multi-party system as justification for its actions, stating, “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 practise are undermining the ability of opposition parties to freely organize and function.

“The ADC has not alleged the abolition of multi-party democracy in form; rather, it has raised concerns about actions that, in effect, weaken it.

“The Chairman’s reliance on the existence of multiple parties as proof of neutrality does not address the specific conduct under scrutiny.”

On the interpretation of the Court of Appeal’s order, the party described INEC’s position as flawed.

“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.

“The Chairman’s attempt 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.

“That determination lies strictly within the jurisdiction of the courts, not the Commission," it noted.

The party further rejected claims that its planned congresses could affect ongoing legal proceedings, noting, “Furthermore, the Chairman’s claim that holding congresses or conventions would ‘render proceedings nugatory’ is an overreach.

“Internal party processes, conducted in line with the party’s constitution and the Electoral Act, do not extinguish or prejudice pending judicial proceedings.

“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.”

On INEC’s role, the ADC said the commission lacks the power to halt its internal processes, adding that the assertion that INEC is restrained from monitoring congresses due to an injunction equally exposes a critical misunderstanding of its role.

“INEC’s duty to monitor is statutory and triggered upon proper notification. 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," it noted.

It also faulted INEC’s reference to internal disputes as justification for inaction, adding, “The Chairman also references conflicting communications from different factions within the ADC as justification for inaction."

The party argued that internal disputes do not take away a political party’s constitutional rights while noting that such disagreements are common in democratic systems and are usually resolved without disrupting party activities.

It added that INEC’s responsibility is not to settle these disputes or halt party operations, but to remain neutral and allow due process to proceed.

The ADC dismissed comparisons with past electoral precedents cited by INEC, stressing, “On the invocation of precedents such as Zamfara, the comparison is misplaced.

“Those cases involved clear and established failures to comply with mandatory legal requirements for primaries.

“In contrast, the ADC has demonstrated its commitment to conducting its processes in strict accordance with its constitution and the Electoral Act.

“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 party warned against what it described as administrative overreach, noting that while the Chairman frames INEC’s position as one of caution to avoid future judicial invalidation of elections, such reasoning cannot justify present overreach.”

“The law does not permit administrative bodies to curtail constitutional rights on the basis of speculative future outcomes. The proper course is to allow parties to act within the law and for courts to adjudicate disputes as they arise,” the party noted.

Reaffirming its position, the ADC said it would continue its activities. The party reiterated that its right to organize congresses and hold its national convention is constitutionally guaranteed and has not been lawfully suspended by any court.

“The interpretation advanced by the INEC Chairman stretches judicial directives beyond their meaning and risks setting a dangerous precedent where regulatory caution becomes a tool for democratic suppression.”

“The ADC will therefore proceed with its activities in full compliance with the law and urges INEC to confine itself strictly to its constitutional and statutory mandate,” it noted.