INEC’s handling of internal issues within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presents itself not merely as an administrative misstep but as a brazen early disclosure of partisan inclination. The delisting of the Senator David Mark-led National Working Committee (NWC) from its official portal on April 1 was demonstrably done in bad faith and effectively tilted the electoral turf even before the 2027 general elections begin in earnest. This premature exposure raises profound questions about the Commission’s integrity, independence, and non-partisanship.
First, a throwback. The ADC has been on the political map of Nigeria as a marginal player. It, however, underwent a dramatic transformation in July 2025 when a coalition of opposition heavyweights, including former Senate President David Mark as National Chairman and ex-Interior Minister Rauf Aregbesola as National Secretary, assumed control through a resolution of the National Executive Committee (NEC). INEC monitored aspects of the process and, crucially, uploaded the new leadership details to its portal on 9 September 2025. Until April 1, the Commission related to the Mark-led NWC as legitimate. That was the situation until Bala Nafiu Gombe, erstwhile National Deputy Chairman of the ADC, approached the courts with a request to upstage the NWC and impose him as new chairman.
The matter got to the Court of Appeal, which, on March 12, 2026, in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/145/2026, directed parties to maintain the “status quo ante bellum.” This legally refers to the situation before the substantive suit was brought to the Federal High Court. Interestingly, rather than interpret this preservatory order conservatively to preserve the existing, duly uploaded, INEC took the extraordinary step of removing Mark, Aregbesola, and the entire NWC from its records. It went further to announce the suspension of recognition of “any faction”, refusing to monitor congresses or conventions, and declaring it would entertain no further communications from the party until the Federal High Court rules. In other words, in one fell swoop, INEC created a leadership vacuum in a party that was positioning itself as a viable opposition platform to the ruling party.
Essentially, what INEC did was nothing neutral. It effectively took sides. Its action was a selective, activist interpretation of a court directive that conveniently disrupts the only major opposition platform showing signs of cohesion. The timing could not be more suspect. With the 2027 electoral timetable already in motion, with primaries looming and candidate nomination deadlines approaching as early as May in some projections, INEC’s move threatens to render the ADC unable to field candidates. As the party’s spokesperson, Bolaji Abdullahi, rightly noted, this amounts to “laying administrative landmines” to bar the ADC from the ballot. Sen. Mark himself had minced no words at a Thursday press conference, when he said that the Commission’s actions confirmed it has become “irredeemably partisan, working… towards a preconceived agenda.” Calls from the Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for caution and due process underscore a broader alarm that INEC is not merely erring on the side of caution, but erring on the side of the ruling party. This is accentuated by a recent Facebook post by the spokesman of the President, Bayo Onanuga, who shared a picture of Bala Nafiu labelled as ‘National Chairman of ADC’.
To understand the gravity of the situation, we need to recall INEC’s precedents and the political context. The Commission had previously accepted the Mark transition. The status quo ante bellum, properly construed, should have preserved that administrative act already completed before the litigation began. Several lawyers have pointed out that INEC’s sudden derecognition contradicts legal principles against reversing completed actions by injunction and ignores the Commission’s September 2025 affidavit affirming the transition’s validity. INEC’s action also creates sympathy for ADC, which is no longer a fringe party. ADC had re-emerged to become a strong alternative, attracting heavyweights who have become disillusioned with the APC’s economic hardships and governance style. Mark and Aregbesola represent a cross-party appeal with experience from the PDP and APC eras. A united ADC, potentially aligning with elements from the Labour Party, NNPP, and PDP, posed an existential threat to the APC in 2027. Crippling it administratively serves the APC’s interest in a political environment where many opposition figures have their hearts set on the APC’s deep wallet.
Prof. Amupitan’s action fits a disturbing pattern at INEC. The 2023 elections were marred by allegations of technological failures, result discrepancies, and perceived institutional capture occasioned by Prof. Mahmood Yakubu’s surrender of the electoral process to the ruling party. That era tainted the Commission’s integrity. Yakubu left INEC without fanfare. Amupitan, who succeeded him, promised a new era of transparency. Sadly, a few months into office, he showed his hand and his mission. More disturbing is that Amupitan is barefacedly defending his action, which threatens the sustenance of democracy in Nigeria, by claiming obedience to court orders while ignoring calls for accountability. Amupitan’s INEC insists that his action upholds Section 287(2) of the 1999 Constitution and avoids past pitfalls like the Zamfara and Plateau gubernatorial nullifications. But the public is right to cry bias when the same Commission begins to pick and choose which court pronouncements to observe and which to reject. In effect, INEC must know that neutrality demands consistency, not convenient and overzealous compliance that cripples the opposition.
The implications for 2027 are dire. Nigeria’s democracy centres on a level playing field. When the electoral umpire appears to pre-select winners by hobbling challengers, voter apathy deepens, trust evaporates, and the reality of one-party dominance looms. Internal wranglings in political parties are not new to Nigeria. They are a constant. But INEC’s role as regulator is not to exploit those fissures and amputate democracy but to enforce the Electoral Act impartially. Section 29 and related provisions grant INEC powers over party leadership recognition precisely to prevent chaos, not to manufacture it. Therefore, by freezing the ADC, the Commission risks disenfranchising not just party members but millions of voters seeking alternative political platforms in the face of destructive inflation, devastating insecurity, and policy fatigue. And despite divergent views on this, the consensus among objective observers is that INEC has overreached. The Commission’s claim of regulatory neutrality rings hollow when its actions align so neatly with the interests of the ruling party.
The ADC saga is thus a litmus test for Amupitan’s INEC. If Amupitan proceeds with this posture and treats opposition parties as nuisances to be managed rather than stakeholders to be facilitated, 2027 will not be an election but a coronation. However, Nigerians deserve better. They fought for democracy, not to trade military dictatorship for an elected one. That is what Amupitan’s INEC must guard against because its early revelation of partisan intent in the ADC matter bears the marks of a national emergency. Integrity would demand that INEC’s commitment to its constitutional mandate be maintained to avoid turning question marks over its role in 2027 into a full stop on Nigeria’s democratic aspirations.