ADC accuses INEC of overreach, insists on right to hold congresses
By Ejire Folakunmi
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has criticised recent remarks by the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Joash Amupitan, describing them as a misrepresentation of legal and constitutional principles.
In a detailed response to the INEC chairman’s interview, the party said the commission’s position, though presented as neutral and law-based, reflects what it called a flawed interpretation of both constitutional provisions and judicial directives.
The ADC argued that the central issue is not the existence of a multi-party system, as emphasised by the INEC chairman, but whether the commission’s actions are undermining the ability of opposition parties to organise and function effectively.
According to the party, citing Nigeria’s multi-party status does not address concerns about specific actions that could weaken opposition participation in practice.
On the issue of the Court of Appeal’s preservation order, the ADC faulted the chairman’s reliance on the doctrine of status quo ante bellum, noting that such an order is meant to prevent irreversible changes to the subject matter of litigation, not to halt the internal activities of a political party.
The party maintained that INEC lacks the authority to determine what constitutes the “status quo” in the matter, stressing that such interpretations fall strictly within the jurisdiction of the courts.
It further argued that the commission’s suggestion that holding congresses or conventions could render judicial proceedings nugatory amounts to an overreach, as internal party processes conducted in line with party constitutions and the Electoral Act do not invalidate ongoing legal proceedings.
The ADC emphasised that democratic continuity within a political party remains legally presumed unless a court expressly orders otherwise, noting that no such directive prohibiting its congresses or convention has been issued.
On INEC’s claim that it is restrained from monitoring party activities due to an injunction, the party described this as a misunderstanding of the commission’s statutory role.
It explained that while INEC has a duty to monitor party processes upon notification, the validity of such processes does not depend on the commission’s presence. The ADC warned that conflating monitoring with legality effectively grants INEC powers beyond those provided by law.
Addressing the issue of internal disputes within the party, the ADC acknowledged the existence of differing communications from factions but insisted that such disagreements do not suspend a political party’s constitutional rights.
The party stated that internal conflicts are common in democratic systems and should not be used as justification for administrative inaction or interference.
It also dismissed comparisons with previous judicial precedents, including cases involving Zamfara State, arguing that those situations involved clear violations of legal requirements for primaries, unlike its current processes, which it said comply fully with the law.
The ADC criticised what it described as speculative warnings by the INEC chairman regarding potential judicial consequences, noting that administrative bodies are not empowered to restrict lawful activities based on hypothetical future outcomes.
Reaffirming its position, the party maintained that its right to organise congresses and hold a national convention remains constitutionally guaranteed and has not been suspended by any court order.
It warned that the interpretation advanced by INEC risks setting a precedent where regulatory caution could be used to limit democratic freedoms, urging the commission to adhere strictly to its mandate and allow due legal processes to take their course.