By Desire Emmanuel
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) on Friday, April 3, rejected claims made by the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Joash Amupitan, during an interview on a television station on Friday morning, saying what he said amounted to contempt of court.
Amupitan, at the interview, warned that proceeding with the congresses and convention of the party could violate existing court orders.
The party described the position of INEC chairman as wilful distortion of the Court of Appeal’s directive to maintain the status quo, which amounts to contempt of the court.
The ADC accused INEC of overstepping its supervisory role and attempting to halt lawful processes, insisting that internal disputes do not suspend democratic functions, while reaffirming its decision to proceed in full compliance with the law.
The statement reads:
“The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has carefully reviewed the recent interview granted by the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Joash Amupitan, and finds it necessary to respond in order to correct several legal and factual misrepresentations.
“While the commission seeks to present its position as one anchored in law and neutrality, the substance of the chairman’s own statements reveals a fundamental misapplication of both constitutional principles and judicial directives.
“First, the chairman’s repeated assertion that INEC is merely acting within the confines of a “multiparty constitutional order” is, with respect, a deflection from the central issue.
“The question before Nigerians is not whether Nigeria remains a multiparty state in theory, but whether the actions of INEC in practice are undermining the ability of opposition parties to freely organize and function.
“The ADC has not alleged the abolition of multiparty democracy in form; rather, it has raised concerns about actions that, in effect, weaken it. The chairman’s reliance on the existence of multiple parties as proof of neutrality does not address the specific conduct under scrutiny.
“On the issue of the Court of Appeal’s order, the chairman places heavy reliance on the doctrine of status quo ante bellum, suggesting that it requires a rollback to a particular point in time and a suspension of party activities.
“This interpretation is both selective and legally flawed. The preservation order, by its nature, is intended to prevent actions that would irreversibly alter the subject matter of litigation, not to paralyse the internal functioning of a political party. “The chairman’s attempt to define the status quo by tracing the controversy to internal party developments in July 2025 is an administrative interpretation that INEC is not empowered to make. That determination lies strictly within the jurisdiction of the courts, not the commission.
“Furthermore, the chairman’s claim that holding congresses or conventions would ‘render proceedings nugatory’ is an overreach. Internal party processes, conducted in line with the party’s constitution and the Electoral Act, do not extinguish or prejudice pending judicial proceedings.
“On the contrary, democratic continuity within a political party is presumed under the law unless expressly restrained by a competent court. No such explicit order prohibiting congresses or conventions has been cited. What exists are general preservation directives, which cannot be expanded into a blanket prohibition on party governance.
“The assertion that INEC is restrained from monitoring congresses due to an injunction equally exposes a critical misunderstanding of its role. INEC’s duty to monitor is statutory and triggered upon proper notification.
“A party’s decision to proceed with its internal processes does not depend on INEC’s participation. By conflating its monitoring function with the validity of the processes themselves, INEC effectively places itself above the law, assuming a veto power it does not possess.
“The chairman also references conflicting communications from different factions within the ADC as justification for inaction. However, the existence of internal disputes does not suspend a political party’s constitutional rights. Indeed, such disputes are commonplace in democratic systems and are routinely resolved without administrative paralysis. INEC’s role is not to arbitrate these disputes or to freeze party activities pending their resolution, but to maintain neutrality and allow due process to run its course.
“On the invocation of precedents such as Zamfara, the comparison is misplaced. Those cases involved clear and established failures to comply with mandatory legal requirements for primaries. In contrast, the ADC has demonstrated its commitment to conducting its processes in strict accordance with its constitution and the Electoral Act.
“Preemptively warning of hypothetical judicial consequences, as the chairman has done, amounts to speculation and cannot serve as a legal basis to restrict lawful party activities.
“Finally, while the chairman frames INEC’s position as one of caution to avoid future judicial invalidation of elections, this reasoning cannot justify present overreach.
“The law does not permit administrative bodies to curtail constitutional rights on the basis of speculative future outcomes. The proper course is to allow parties to act within the law and for courts to adjudicate disputes as they arise.”
