ADC Crisis: We Acted On Court Order, Not Social Media Reports — Amupitan

The Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Joash Amupitan, has defended the commission’s decision in the leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress (ADC), saying the electoral body acted strictly on the basis of a court order and not on speculation circulating on social media.

Amupitan, who spoke in an exclusive interview with ARISE News on Friday, said the controversy surrounding INEC’s position was being driven by misunderstanding and political interpretation, insisting that the commission merely complied with the clear directives of the Court of Appeal.

The INEC chairman said the commission was careful not to rush into action based on online reports, especially as the initial reactions that followed the ruling were already creating confusion.

“When I first heard of it, because it was delivered on the 12th, I heard of it in the news on social media.

“And before I knew it, people were calling that INEC has ordered David Mark to be removed,.

“I said I cannot act on social media news,” he stated firmly.

According to him, the dispute had already progressed through legal channels after the parties were directed to respond to an application before the court.

“The parties were expected to file counter affidavit and show us why the application should be refused, so they did,” he said.

He explained, however, that while that process was ongoing, Senator David Mark proceeded to challenge the matter at the appellate level.

“But at the same time, Senator David Mark decided to go and appeal, so when he filed the appeal sometime on the 18th of December 2025, the appeal lasted until March this year, which is about five months,” Amupitan said.

He said the Court of Appeal eventually dismissed the appeal, and in doing so, issued what he described as clear preservatory orders that became binding on all parties, including INEC.

“The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal based on preservatory orders and the preservatory orders were very clear,” he said.

Amupitan went on to list what he described as the key directives contained in the ruling.

“Number one, in view of the fact that INEC had already released its timetable for the election and these are originating summons, that is number one,” he said.

He added that the second order, which has now become the centre of public controversy, was equally unambiguous.

“The number two that is generating controversy is the specific order that parties should maintain status quo ante bellum,” he stated.

He stressed that the appellate court did not stop there, but went further to restrain the parties from taking any step capable of undermining the trial court.

“And it did not just stop at that, and it did not just stop at that, that parties should not do anything that will foist a fait accompli on the trial court,” he said.

“Finally, [they] should not do anything that will render the proceedings before the court nugatory. Those were the definite orders of the Court of Appeal,” he added.

He maintained that because the matter involved an interlocutory appeal that had only just been dismissed, the logical focus should have shifted to the substantive case before the lower court rather than public speculation over political consequences.

“It was an interlocutory appeal that has been dismissed, so we should be looking for a way forward for the substantive trial,” he said.

Amupitan’s explanation came amid growing backlash over INEC’s decision to stop recognising the rival leadership factions in the ADC after reviewing the Court of Appeal judgment delivered on March 12 in the party’s ongoing leadership dispute.

The controversy escalated after the commission declined to continue dealing with both the David Mark-led camp and the Rafiu Bala faction, insisting that all parties must maintain the status quo ante bellum pending the determination of the substantive suit.

The move triggered outrage from the ADC, which accused INEC of acting under external influence and called for the removal of the INEC chairman.