You Risk Not Fielding Candidates In 2027 – INEC Warns ADC

The opposition African Democratic Congress (ADC) has insisted it will proceed with its planned nationwide congresses and national convention slated for April 14, despite a stern warning from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) over possible legal consequences.

The decision comes amid a deepening internal crisis within the party, following INEC’s suspension of recognition of the David Mark-led National Executive Committee (NEC) due to an ongoing leadership dispute currently before the courts.

In a statement issued yesterday in Abuja by the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, the ADC maintained that it had complied with all constitutional and procedural requirements by notifying INEC 21 days ahead of its scheduled activities.

Abdullahi added that the electoral commission had duly acknowledged receipt of the notice.

However, he stressed that the party would not be deterred by INEC’s current position, even if the commission declines to monitor the planned exercises.

According to him, the ADC remains committed to moving forward with its internal democratic processes, regardless of the uncertainties surrounding the leadership tussle.

INEC, on its part, made its position clear on Wednesday, citing the pending court case as the basis for its decision not to recognise the current party leadership or supervise its activities.

Speaking on the implications of proceeding under such circumstances, INEC Chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan, warned that defying court orders could have far-reaching consequences.

The INEC chairman, who spoke during an interview on Arise Television, referenced past political precedents, including cases in Zamfara State and Plateau State, where electoral victories were nullified by the courts due to non-compliance with legal requirements.

Amupitan explained that in such situations, even after a party wins an election, the courts may invalidate the victory and declare the candidate with the second-highest number of votes as the winner.

“Failure to obey court orders has consequences,” he warned, emphasizing that while political parties are free to conduct their affairs, INEC is determined to avoid a repeat of past scenarios where judicial rulings overturned electoral outcomes.

The INEC chairman also said the commission was careful not to act hastily based on unverified reports, especially as initial reactions to the ruling had already created confusion.

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

“And before I knew it, people were saying INEC had ordered David Mark to be removed.

“I said I cannot act on social media reports,” 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-affidavits and show why the application should be refused, and 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 appeal. When he filed the appeal sometime on December 18, 2025, the case 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 binding on all parties, including INEC.

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

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

“First, in view of the fact that INEC had already released its timetable for the election and that this was an originating summons,” he said.

He added that the second order, which has generated public controversy, was equally unambiguous.

“The second, which is generating controversy, is the specific order that parties should maintain the 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.

“It also directed that parties should not do anything that will foist a fait accompli on the trial court,” he said.

“Finally, they should not take any action 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 just been dismissed, attention should now shift 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 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 engaging 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.