By George Mgbeleke <\/p>\n
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has rejected claims made by the INEC Chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan, during an interview on ARISE NEWS on Friday morning, where he warned that proceeding with its congresses and convention could violate existing court orders. The party described the position of INEC as wilful distortion of the Court of Appeal\u2019s directive to maintain the status quo, which amounts to contempt of the court. <\/p>\n
ADC accused INEC of overstepping its supervisory role and attempting to halt lawful processes, insisting that internal disputes do not suspend democratic functions, while reaffirming its decision to proceed in full compliance with the law.<\/p>\n
The full statement read:<\/p>\n
“The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has carefully reviewed the recent interview granted by the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Joash Amupitan, and finds it necessary to respond, in order to correct several legal and factual misrepresentations. While the Commission seeks to present its position as one anchored in law and neutrality, the substance of the Chairman\u2019s own statements reveals a fundamental misapplication of both constitutional principles and judicial directives.<\/p>\n
“First, the Chairman\u2019s repeated assertion that INEC is merely acting within the confines of a \u201cmulti-party constitutional order\u201d 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. 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\u2019s reliance on the existence of multiple parties as proof of neutrality does not address the specific conduct under scrutiny.<\/p>\n
“On the issue of the Court of Appeal\u2019s 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\u2019s attempt to define the \u201cstatus quo\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
“Furthermore, the Chairman\u2019s claim that holding congresses or conventions would \u201crender proceedings nugatory\u201d is an overreach. Internal party processes, conducted in line with the party\u2019s 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.”<\/p>\n
Continuing the statement further noted, “The assertion that INEC is restrained from monitoring congresses due to an injunction equally exposes a critical misunderstanding of its role. INEC\u2019s duty to monitor is statutory and triggered upon proper notification. A party\u2019s decision to proceed with its internal processes does not depend on INEC\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
“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\u2019s constitutional rights. Indeed, such disputes are commonplace in democratic systems and are routinely resolved without administrative paralysis. INEC\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
“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.<\/p>\n
“Finally, while the Chairman frames INEC\u2019s position as one of caution to avoid future judicial invalidation of elections, this 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.<\/p>\n
“In conclusion, the ADC reiterates 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.<\/p>\n
“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.”
\nMeanwhile,INEC has maintained that it it is obliged to obey the law and not politians.<\/p>\n
In a statement by the chief Press Secretary to INEC Chairman,Adedayo Oketola, the attention of the Commission has been drawn to a recent public statements by political actors alleging partisan bias, calling for the removal of the Chairman of the Commission on account of the decision of the Commission to obey the recent Court of Appeal Judgment.<\/p>\n
INEC explained that the Commission, is a creation of the Constitution and its leadership is governed by Section 157 of the 1999 Constitution, emphasizing that the chairman does not hold office at the pleasure of any political party or interest group.<\/p>\n
The commission stated that any call for removal outside the established constitutional process is an assault on its independence. This comes after INEC decided to comply with a Court of Appeal judgment regarding the Democratic Congress (ADC) led by David Mark, amidst internal strife within the party.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
By George Mgbeleke The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has rejected claims made by the INEC Chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan, during an interview on ARISE NEWS on Friday morning, where he warned that proceeding with its congresses and convention could violate existing court orders. The party described the position of INEC as wilful distortion of the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":6603,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[6374,6375],"class_list":["post-12422","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-politics","tag-overstepping","tag-supervisory"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyechoes.ng\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12422","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyechoes.ng\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyechoes.ng\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyechoes.ng\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyechoes.ng\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12422"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/dailyechoes.ng\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12422\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12431,"href":"https:\/\/dailyechoes.ng\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12422\/revisions\/12431"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyechoes.ng\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6603"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyechoes.ng\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12422"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyechoes.ng\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12422"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyechoes.ng\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12422"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}