By Abdulrahman Aliagan
Nigeria’s political landscape has once again been stirred by a familiar tension between party ambition and constitutional restraint, as Prof. Joash Amupitan, Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), cautions the African Democratic Congress (ADC) against proceeding with its planned congresses and national convention.
At the heart of the unfolding drama lies a deepening internal crisis within the opposition party—one that has now drawn the attention of the courts and the electoral umpire. INEC’s recent decision to remove the names of ADC leaders from its official portal, following a Court of Appeal judgment, signals not just administrative action but a firm institutional stance: the commission will not recognise factions within the party, nor will it monitor its convention if the dispute persists.
Yet, in defiance of this position, the ADC appears resolute. Its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, insists that the party has complied with all procedural requirements, including issuing the statutory 21-day notice to INEC. For the ADC leadership, the convention represents continuity and legitimacy; for INEC, it raises red flags of legality and compliance.
Speaking during an interview on Arise TV, Amupitan delivered a pointed warning—one that echoes past political missteps with costly consequences.
He stressed that INEC’s decision was not arbitrary but rooted in an existing court order, underscoring a critical principle in Nigeria’s democratic process: the supremacy of the rule of law. Proceeding with party activities that may contradict ongoing judicial proceedings, he warned, could render such actions null and void.
More striking, however, was his invocation of history. Drawing from precedents in Zamfara State and Plateau State, Amupitan reminded political actors of the far-reaching implications of defying court orders. In both instances, electoral victories were overturned—not on the strength of opposition campaigns, but on legal technicalities arising from non-compliance. The lesson, he implied, is stark: electoral success achieved outside the bounds of legality is ultimately fragile.
In Zamfara, the courts invalidated the victories of a dominant party due to flawed primaries, handing power to candidates who did not initially secure the majority vote. Plateau witnessed similar judicial interventions during the last electoral cycle, reinforcing the judiciary’s decisive role in Nigeria’s democratic architecture.
For the ADC, the stakes are now unmistakably high. Proceeding with its convention without resolving the legal dispute may not only deepen internal fractures but could also jeopardize its future electoral prospects. INEC’s refusal to monitor the exercise further complicates matters, raising questions about the legitimacy of any outcomes produced.
Beyond the immediate dispute, this episode reflects a broader challenge within Nigeria’s party system—where internal democracy, legal compliance, and institutional trust often collide.
As the ADC charts its next move, the warning from INEC is clear: political processes must not only be pursued with urgency but with strict adherence to the law. Anything less, as history has shown, risks turning victory into defeat long after the ballots are counted.
