ADC Crisis: INEC Chair Amupitan Explains ‘Status Quo Ante Bellum’ Position In Appeal Court Verdict

The chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Joash Amupitan (SAN), has explained the commission’s stance in the ongoing dispute involving African Democratic Congress (ADC) leadership as regards the legal principle of ‘status quo ante bellum’, describing position as a return to the “peaceful period before controversy.”

Speaking during an exclusive interview on ARISE News Channel on Friday, Amupitan said INEC’s actions were guided strictly by court orders, particularly the directive of the Court of Appeal that parties must refrain from taking steps that could prejudice pending litigation.

“Status quo ante bellum naturally means the status before hostility started,” he explained. “It refers to the period when things were peaceful, when there was cordiality, before the controversy arose.”

The INEC chairman’s clarification comes amid accusations from some ADC stakeholders, including the party spokesperson, Bolaji Abdullahi, who alleged that the electoral body had become “a threat to democracy” and even described it as a “criminal organisation.”

Reacting, Amupitan dismissed the characterisation as “unfortunate,” insisting that the commission had remained neutral and bound by the rule of law.

“If they are saying we have taken sides, that is not true,” he said. “We looked at the facts, the circumstances, and what constitutes status quo ante bellum before arriving at our position.”

He disclosed that following a Court of Appeal judgement, INEC received communication from a faction of ADC linked to Senator David Mark, notifying the commission of plans to reschedule primary election activities.

However, he noted that a motion was already pending before the Federal High Court seeking to restrain INEC from monitoring any congresses or conventions of the party.

“The Court of Appeal was clear that none of the parties should do anything that will foist a situation of fait accompli on the trial court,” Amupitan stated. “So long as that motion is pending, you cannot assume anything. You must wait for the court to decide.”

He warned that proceeding with congresses or conventions under such circumstances would amount to a breach of the appellate court’s order.

“When they gave notice to go ahead with the congress and convention, we said that would be breaching that aspect of the order,” he added.

On the contentious leadership tussle within the ADC, Amupitan said the issue of resignation by Nafiu Bala Gombe remains unresolved and was also before the court.

“We have records of a letter informing the commission that Nafiu Bala had resigned,” he said. “But he is now contending before the court that he did not resign and that his signature was forged. This is a matter for the court to decide.”

He stressed that INEC deliberately avoided taking a position on the leadership claims to prevent interfering with judicial proceedings.

“It is not a matter anybody can act on now,” he said. “The court has to determine the rights and responsibilities of the parties.”

Amupitan further explained that the commission’s interpretation of ‘status quo ante bellum’ required it to identify the point before the dispute escalated.

“If you look at it from that perspective, you go back to when there was no controversy,” he said. “That is the point the law expects us to maintain until the court reaches a decision.”

He traced the origin of the dispute to July 29, 2025, noting that events after that date formed the basis of the current legal contest.

The INEC chairman maintained that the commission’s priority remains compliance with judicial pronouncements and preservation of democratic order.
“Let the court decide,” he reiterated. “That is the safest path for all parties involved.”