‘Failure to obey court orders has consequences’

This was filed on the 15th December before the judgement of the Court of Appeal. They were alleging that since they have brought the judgement of the Court of Appeal to me, I still asked EPM to monitor their NEC meeting and that I was in violation of that judgement. Also, for inviting them for the meeting of political parties, it was also a violation of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. At that stage, I called for the file so that I would be fully abreast with the facts. I went through the judgement and the nature of the order granted by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal stated clearly and ordered that status quo ante bellum must be maintained.

That is the problem because at the press conference, Senator David Mark said that you took sides because it was not for you to interpret what status quo ante bellum means; that you should have gone to the Court of Appeal to seek interpretation instead of using an interpretation. He said Nafiu Gombe has no locus standi in the matter having resigned from the party on the 18th of May, 2025, which was communicated to INEC in a letter that the commission acknowledged. On the basis of that, they are saying INEC has become a threat to democracy. In fact, the spokesperson went further to say that INEC has become a criminal organisation and that they will not agree.

That is unfortunate if INEC is being described in that manner. The truth of the matter is that after the Court of Appeal judgement, I received another letter from David Mark's group informing us of the rescheduling of their election activities for the primaries. I looked at the motion already pending before the Federal High Court. It requested that INEC should not monitor any meeting, congress or convention. If you go back to the order of the Court of Appeal, it states that none of the parties should do anything that will foist a fait accompli on the court.

So, it means that as long as that motion is pending, you say somebody does not have locus standi, he has already gone to the court and you have to wait for the court to decide and that is part of what the Court of Appeal was saying. Let the court decide the rights and responsibilities of the parties. So, when they gave that notice to go ahead with the congress and convention, I said we would be breaching that part of the order of the Court of Appeal that none of the parties should force a fait accompli on the trial court in respect of the subject matter. That is one of their pleas in the originating summons and that is what they are claiming in their motion exparte and interlocutory motion and motion on notice.

Based on the fact that they are informing me that they are going to hold their congresses on the 9th of April and the Court of Appeal said don't do anything that will affect the subject matter in the case before the Federal High Court until it is decided. At that stage, we felt it is necessary to look at the complaint of all the parties, especially the letters written by their counsel and their letter on the congresses. I looked at the facts of the matter. What is status quo ante bellum? If they are saying that we have taken side that is not true. If you look at status quo ante bellum, it means the status before the hostilities started. Several authorities have said the status before the war and the status when things were peaceful until the controversy came. So, if you look at it, there are Supreme Court decisions on that. Status quo is different from status quo ante bellum. So, when you say status quo ante bellum, it means you have to go back.

There is an indication of time here. When you say status quo ante bellum, at what point do you put that status quo? Would that be before the resignation of Nafiu Bala Gombe from the ADC or would it be at the point Ralph Nwosu ratified the National Working Committee-led by Senator David Mark?

The validity of the resignation is pending before the Federal High Court and the court will have to make a pronouncement on that. We have the record of a letter written by ADC informing the commission that Nafiu Bala has resigned. That was in August. Nafiu Bala also wrote and is contending before the court that he did not resign and that as a matter of fact, his signature was forged. This is a matter the court has to decide and not a matter anybody can act on now.

That is why we were very careful when his lawyers were insisting that he did not resign and by virtue of the provisions of the constitution of ADC, when others of the executive resign, that naturally, he ought to be the National Chairman of ADC. But looking at the fact that it is that matter the court has to decide, we decided that we are not going to touch that part. Looking at status quo ante bellum, given the meaning and definition given to it by the Supreme Court, that it means before hostility started, when things were peaceful, until there is controversy.

So, if you look at it backwards you ask when was there a controversy. Controversy started in the 29th day of July, 2025 when there was at meeting of NEC which now brought about the David Mark's group. So, if you look at it, it would mean that before that time, what was the position? Now, in this case, the plaintiff went to court on the 2nd on the September 2025. He filed their motions and also filed motion exparte and motion on notice on the 15th December restraining us and even stopping them from parading themselves.

These are proceedings and the Court of Appeal said don't do anything that will render any proceedings nugatory. Whether it is valid, whether it is competent or not, so long as it is filed, don't do anything that will render the proceedings nugatory. So, if we are going to take any step to monitor any primary now, there is an injunction that stops us from going there; to go and monitor any congress, there is an injunction that stopped us from going there.

The ADC has issued a statement of defiance that they will not obey all the directives from INEC because it has no power to choose the leadership of a political party and that they will go ahead with their congresses and conventions because they have to be part of the forthcoming elections in Ekiti and Osun. What is the implication?

As far as we are concerned, INEC is a party in the case and INEC was sued as a defendant by a member of the ADC. Secondly, the court is very clear that parties, including David Mark himself should refrain from doing anything that will force a situation of fait accompli on the court.

So, if they are going ahead with their congresses and convention, it is left for them to take another look at it. INEC did not just take this decision. Something led to it. There was an order of court saying don't do anything, don't take any step that will render the proceedings before the court nugatory, or anything that forces a situation of helplessness on the court. So if there is the order that don't do any convention or congress, it is a relief that is being claimed. They filed a motion for that purpose and it has not been determined.

Let me tell you what happened in Zamfara because it happened in the past. We don't want to conduct an election with these early warnings and after you have won, the court will come and declare the elections invalid.

The implication is that the person with the second highest number of votes will be declared the winner. It happened in Plateau State during the last election where the conduct of primaries was an issue and congresses were not held in some places and the court said go and do those primaries. Unfortunately, they did not obey the court order. So, failure to obey court orders has consequences. They are at liberty to do whatever they want to do.

But INEC would not want to go into a situation again where there is an order saying don't do anything, don't take any step. If I proceed to monitor their congresses and convention, that means I am doing things that will affect the subject matter pending before the court.

What about the allegations that INEC under your leadership is being used to create a one-party state, and leave Nigerians with no other option than President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in 2027. It is not only the ADC that is saying that. Prof. Pat Utomi has said that recognising the Wike faction in the PDP is a clear evidence that INEC is working for President Tinubu's one-party rule. The ADC people are using the word dictatorship. Are you guilty as charged?

I am not guilty as charged. Let me say it clearly that I am not a party to the plan by anyone to turn Nigeria into a one-party state. By the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Nigeria is a multi-party state and this is recognised by the constitution and the Electoral Act. Look at the last FCT Area Council election… There were about 10 or more political parties that contested. You have the APC having five and the PDP winning one. Zenith Labour Party did very well. There are other parties existing.

One of the problems that we have had is the issue of party leadership and it is something that is impacting our democracy. If those issues are not addressed on time, they can cause a lot of problems. In this particular case, let me take you back to the judgement. Nobody is looking at the part where the Court of Appeal asked the trial court to give the case expeditious hearing. This is an originating summon and, in fact, this judgement is up to about two or three weeks now. It is an originating summon that, if they had gone to court, would have been decided by now because the Court of Appeal has given a specific order that it be decided expeditiously in view of the timetable that we have issued. So, given the fact that the parties are in court, one party, whether it has locus standi or not (Nafiu Bala Gombe) is alleging that he is the authentic chairman of ADC and the David Mark group are saying they are the authentic leaders of ADC. The best thing is what the Court of Appeal has asked them to do. Go back to the court and the court should hear them on time and decide the matter, and while you are doing that, no party should do anything. The fact that this order has been made, let them go back to the Federal High Court with that order because that order of the Court of Appeal is enough to compel the judge to grant that case expeditious hearing. So, the whole idea that INEC is being used is not true. If this judgement had not come, would I just decide on my own? The Court of Appeal did not just dismiss the appeal, it said they are making preservatory orders and in that order, it ordered status quo ante bellum and not just status quo - before hostilities - be maintained. I went to the records before 2 September 2025 when this matter was filed. What were the positions of the parties? Let the position before then be returned to. So, if they want to go ahead with their congresses and convention, they have to look at it and the order of the court and if at the end of day the court gives them judgment, so be it.

There are other complaints by the parties… like the voters' revalidation exercise which requires people to bring their NIN. They are saying this is a plan to disenfranchise many Nigerians considering the time available and considering the stringent requirement of NIN when there are many people in the rural areas and under-served part of the country that don't have NIN.

The decision to revalidate the voter register was taken before I became the INEC Chairman. The only reason it was not implemented was because it was not in the budget. INEC decided to include it in this year's budget so that the exercise could be carried out. While not adding the numbers that registered recently, we have about 93 million voters on our records. That record is inaccurate and for every election, that is how you judge the performance of the election. In Anambra State, when we had the governorship election last year, there were about 2.8 million registered voters. Out of this number, less than 600,000 turned out to vote. There and then, our attention was drawn to certain facts. People were coming to me to say they knew of people whose names are on that register that died many years ago. There are people that have registered many times before the card reader was introduced in 2000. Elections in Nigeria always have high turnout of voters. But the moment we introduced electronic accreditation, we started having this issue of reduction in the turn out. So, that 93 million is not realistic and that is the measure both locally and internationally to decide whether our election is credible or not. Now, revalidation is going to be done in phases. The first phase has to do with the framework and then engagement with the stakeholders. The second phase has to do with going to the field and has to do with testing and so many other things, before the actual exercise. We have done the framework. The next thing is to engage with the stakeholders and then, we see how far we can push this process. At a meeting with the REC, we discussed it and agreed that it is a very good exercise. Now, I have received complaints about the timetable. During the last meeting, the matter came up and we said that we are still going to engage with the stakeholders.

Is it the same commissioners that ADC said they don't want?

They are talking about National Commissioners. I am talking about Resident Electoral Commissioners. You see, the problem in Nigeria is politics of power and not politics of ideas. As I speak here, I have a vested interest in INEC. When they speak, they have their own vested interest and there are other vested interests. So, when they speak, they should know that INEC did not take the decision that is causing these grievances.