– Abdullahi, Momodu, Odinkalu, Effiong Take INEC to Task
By Franklin Adole
The decision by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to freeze activities of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and remove its recognised leadership from the Commission’s portal has triggered a storm of criticism, with prominent voices alleging political interference and a broader plot to undermine the 2027 general elections.
INEC had, in a statement, said it was acting in compliance with the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the leadership dispute between David Mark and Nafiu Bala Gombe, opting to maintain the “status quo ante bellum” by rolling back all developments after the suit was filed in September 2025.
The Commission also declared it would not recognise any faction of the party or monitor its activities pending the determination of the substantive case before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
But the move has been widely condemned as controversial, with critics accusing INEC of misinterpreting the appellate court’s directive and effectively creating a leadership vacuum in the opposition party.
Media entrepreneur and politician Dele Momodu delivered one of the most scathing reactions, describing INEC as “a debilitating albatross on Nigeria.”
Momodu traced what he called a pattern of institutional failure back to the annulment of the June 12, 1993 Nigerian presidential election, widely believed to have been won by Moshood Abiola.
He accused the electoral body of selective action, citing its swift recognition of a faction within the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) while allegedly ignoring internal disputes within the ruling All Progressives Congress.
According to him, “the robotic nature” of INEC’s actions suggests a deeper agenda, warning that the latest move against the ADC could be part of a grand design to produce a sole candidate in the 2027 presidential election.
Momodu drew parallels with the Sani Abacha military regime era, cautioning that Nigeria may be drifting towards a dangerous political precedent.
Legal practitioner Inebehe Effiong also questioned both the legal and logical basis of INEC’s decision, arguing that there is “a reasonable basis to infer a well-orchestrated sinister conspiracy” to undermine credible elections.
Effiong maintained that, based on available facts, the ADC’s National Executive Committee had ratified the emergence of Mark and Rauf Aregbesola as National Chairman and Secretary, respectively, following the resignation of the previous executives.
He raised fundamental legal questions about whether party leadership disputes remain internal affairs, traditionally regarded as forum domesticum, and whether a court can compel a political party to accept a particular leader against its own decision.
Effiong further challenged INEC’s interpretation of the “status quo ante bellum,” arguing that if applied correctly, it should reflect the situation before the suit was filed, when Mark was already functioning as chairman.
“Is INEC saying there should be a leadership vacuum in the ADC?” she asked pointedly, adding that if the Commission’s goal is to facilitate an uncontested run for Bola Tinubu in 2027, it should declare so openly.
On its part, the ADC, through its National Publicity Secretary Bolaji Abdullahi, outrightly rejected INEC’s position, describing the Commission’s statement as “full of contradictions.”
Abdullahi alleged that INEC had “caved to pressure” from a government he claimed is increasingly nervous about the ADC’s growing momentum, particularly following recent political realignments.
He insisted the party would challenge the decision, stating that its leadership was reviewing legal options and would respond appropriately.
In an earlier statement, Abdullahi went further, alleging that the ruling APC was orchestrating a plan to destabilise the ADC, including sponsoring protests in Abuja to manufacture public pressure against the party’s leadership.
He claimed the objective was to force INEC into recognising an alternative leadership, warning that the move represents a broader attempt to hijack what he described as “the only viable opposition party left in the country.”
Adding another layer to the controversy, legal scholar Chidi Odinkalu alleged, without providing evidence, that INEC’s decision followed high-level meetings involving senior judicial and executive figures.
He further questioned the Commission’s authority to interpret the Court of Appeal’s ruling, arguing that any ambiguity should have been referred back to the court rather than unilaterally acted upon.
Odinkalu also made claims regarding internal pressures within INEC’s leadership, suggesting that external influence may have shaped the Commission’s position—allegations that have not been independently verified.
Despite the growing backlash, INEC has maintained that its actions are guided strictly by the need to preserve the integrity of the judicial process and avoid prejudicing the outcome of the pending case.
Interestingly, some “Netizens” have weighed in on the matter with their own unique perspectives.
Osas(@osazeno) wrote:
“Nafiu dragged David Mark to the Federal High Court, seeking an ex parte order.
The judge didn’t grant it outright, instead, he asked Mark to come and show cause why the request shouldn’t be approved.
Rather than argue it there, Mark went to the Court of Appeal. The appellate court was clear: go back to the Federal High Court and argue your case.
More importantly, the Court of Appeal cautioned Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) not to take any action that could render the pending suit useless. In simple terms “dont recognize anybody.
No Mark. No Nafiu. No faction.
Until the court settles the leadership tussle, there is officially no recognized leadership.
INEC didn’t pick sides; they simply obeyed the court.”
Raphael Daniel( @RaphaelDan8268 wrote:
“Why is opposition so lazy? Argue your case! If Nafiz Bala Gombe denied his signature at resignation, then carry out a forensic audit. Prove your case.”
Wrote Adegun Funmilola(@fadegun): “My concern is why did they take this man for granted? They could have met and negotiated with him. This would have avoided this mess. Sometimes, tiny details matter, and it is not proper taking people for granted.”
ButHawkMontana (@RealHeraclides) towed Effiong’s line, writing:
“No. Status quo ante bellum means the situation of things before the matter was initiated at the Federal High Court. David Mark was Chairman before the matter and should have been left in his place.”