…says, recognising Bala’s actions amounted to INEC taking sides in the ADC leadership crisis.
Abuja, Nigeria — The iNews Times | The ADC leadership crisis took a dramatic turn on Thursday as the African Democratic Congress (ADC) accused the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of violating the law and allegedly taking sides in the party’s ongoing internal dispute.
Speaking during an appearance on Arise Television’s Morning Show, ADC National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, alleged that INEC’s recent actions concerning the party’s leadership structure were not only unlawful but contemptuous of a subsisting directive of the Court of Appeal.
The controversy follows INEC’s decision to remove the names of David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola as National Chairman and National Secretary of the ADC from its official portal. The commission also announced that it would not recognise Nafiu Bala Gombe, who is seeking to be declared national chairman through the courts. In addition, INEC declared the suspension of recognition of all factions within the party pending the determination of a substantive suit before the Federal High Court.
Reacting to the development, Abdullahi insisted that Bala no longer had the legal standing to act on behalf of the party, arguing that his tenure had ended following his resignation and the dissolution of the executive committee he belonged to.
“As at July 17, he was no longer an official of the party, and INEC knew this. So as I was saying, he has no locus,” Abdullahi stated.
According to him, the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC), being the highest decision-making organ after the national convention, had already taken binding decisions regarding the party’s leadership structure.
“It is a settled matter in court that the issue of leadership is wholly an internal affair of political parties, and the NEC is the next most senior organ of the party after the convention,” he said.
Abdullahi further argued that even if Bala denied resigning, the executive committee to which he belonged had been duly dissolved by the NEC, rendering any action taken by him invalid.
“The NEC said that the executive he belonged to, even if he said he did not resign, has been duly dissolved. So on what basis is INEC recognising Bala’s action?” he queried.
The ADC spokesman alleged that INEC had been formally notified of Bala’s resignation as far back as August 12, maintaining that the commission was fully aware of the development.
“Because INEC knew since August 12 that they received a notice of his resignation that he is no longer an official of the party. So on what basis is he being recognised?” Abdullahi asked.
He insisted that recognising Bala’s actions amounted to the electoral body taking sides in the ADC leadership crisis, a move he described as inconsistent with the commission’s constitutional role as an impartial umpire.
Abdullahi went further to accuse INEC of disregarding a directive of the Court of Appeal to maintain the status quo pending the resolution of the leadership dispute.
“What INEC has done effectively is to violate the directive of the appeal court, and that is criminal,” he said.
“If you are talking about contempt, that is what INEC has done. INEC today is behaving like a criminal organisation. And Amupitan is a chief criminal because what the Court of Appeal said is maintain status quo.”
The escalating war of words underscores the deepening tensions surrounding the ADC leadership crisis, which has now drawn in the electoral commission and multiple layers of the judiciary.
INEC’s position, however, indicates that the commission is awaiting the outcome of the substantive suit before the Federal High Court before recognising any faction within the party. By suspending recognition of all factions, the commission appears to be seeking a legal resolution before making a definitive administrative decision.
Political observers say the development could have broader implications for party stability and electoral preparedness, particularly as political activities gradually intensify across the country.
The dispute also highlights recurring tensions between political parties and the electoral umpire over issues of internal democracy and judicial interpretation.
Under Nigerian law, leadership disputes within political parties are generally considered internal matters, except where they intersect with compliance obligations under the Electoral Act. The courts have, in several instances, affirmed that party structures and leadership choices are primarily the responsibility of party organs such as the NEC and national convention.
For the ADC, the immediate concern remains restoring clarity and cohesion within its leadership ranks. For INEC, the challenge lies in balancing its administrative responsibilities with ongoing judicial processes.
As the ADC leadership crisis unfolds, all eyes are now on the Federal High Court, whose decision may ultimately determine the legitimacy of competing claims and shape the party’s trajectory ahead of future political contests.
For now, the standoff between the ADC and INEC adds another chapter to Nigeria’s evolving political landscape, where internal party disputes often spill into the public arena and the courtroom.
The iNews Times will continue to monitor developments in the matter and provide timely updates as events unfold.
