Follow Us on Google
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is the federal executive body constitutionally charged with the responsibility to organise, undertake and supervise all elections to the offices of the President and Vice-President, the Governor and Deputy Governor of a State, and to the membership of the Senate, the House of Representatives and the House of Assembly of each State of the Federation. (See F15(a) of Part 1 of Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution as amended) In relation to political parties, INEC has only the power to register and monitor political parties.
This power does not extend to INEC interfering with the internal affairs of any party, or with its congresses, conventions, and leadership. The only duty of a political party towards INEC is to give 21 days’ notice for any of its elective congresses, conventions, and primaries. Section 82(1)(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 states that every registered political party shall give the Commission at least 21 days’ notice of any convention, congress, conference or meeting convened for the purpose of electing members of its executive committees, other governing bodies or nominating candidates for any of the elective offices or “merger” specified under this Act. The notice shall specify the date, time, venue, and names of the members of the congress, convention or conference committee as spelt out in the party’s constitution.
Not even the courts have the power to interfere in the internal affairs of political parties. If the courts can suo motu, without specific provisions in the Electoral Act, 2022, distance itself from the murky waters of internal affairs of political parties, much more should INEC even run faster to escape the manoeuvrings of party politics. This is particularly more pertinent when the 1999 Constitution decreed that INEC must be non-partisan. The avalanche of Supreme Court decisions on the independence of political parties in the management of its affairs led to the codification of the decisions in the Electoral Act, 2026 to stipulate that courts have no jurisdiction to interfere in the internal affairs of political parties. Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act, 2026 states that “… no Court in Nigeria shall entertain jurisdiction over any suit or matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party.” Subsection (6) even barred the court from granting any interim or interlocutory injunction until the final determination of the case if any party stubbornly brings such a case to court in disobedience to the Statute. Punishment of not less than ₦10,000,000.00 is imposed on the Counsel who filed the action and not less than ₦10,000,000.00 on the Plaintiff/Applicant. In addition INEC would be paid any cost, including solicitors’ fees incurred by it where joined as a party.
The ADC was sued to court by a resigned member of the National Working Committee (NWC), Nafiu Bala Gombe, who was present in all the National Executive Committee meetings that welcomed the new leadership of the party. After the new leadership settled down to work, Gombe, surprisingly, brought an ex-parte motion asking the court to de-recognise the same leadership of the party. Of course, the court rightly rejected the motion ex-parte and asked him to put the leadership of ADC on notice. The new leadership of ADC under David Mark rightly asserted that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and headed to the Court of Appeal (COA) to challenge the order of the trial court. The COA however noted that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the Appellant did not obtain the leave of the COA to appeal.
The position of the law is that whenever a court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain a matter, it lacks the power to make any order or injunction in the matter which affects the interest of any party. Any such other is null and void. It is intellectually fraudulent for the INEC Chairman to be parading a judgement that is nonexistent anywhere. For the avoidance of doubt, one of the reasons the COA rejected the appeal was that the trial court had not given any judgement whatsoever on the matter. The COA even went forward with anger against the Appellant for appealing against a decision of the trial court that was in favour of the Appellant. Whenever a trial court rejects an ex-parte motion, it is in favour of the Defendant because the Defendant would now be heard before decisions are taken. The COA further observed that David Mark was not yet a party to the matter at the trial court because the defendant is usually not a party to an ex-parte motion. A non-party to a suit can, therefore, not have the locus to appeal the matter. So in totality, no judgement or order was made by both the trial court or the COA.
Other News
It was crooked, therefore, for INEC to mischievously use a nonexistent judgement, to hamper the smooth running of ADC. There has been this deception created by INEC that the COA delivered a judgement because of the preservatory orders made. This is laughable. Preservatory orders made by a court that lacks jurisdiction to entertain a matter are mere restatement of procedural legal principles which are mandatory on parties even without the orders being made. For the avoidance of doubt the COA restated these principles thus: Finally, it is necessary to make preservatory orders to ensure that the subject matter of the dispute pending before the trial court is not prejudiced, as courts have inherent powers to control and regulate proceedings to ensure justice. Accordingly, in order to protect the integrity of the proceedings and the eventual determination of the substantive suit pending before the Federal High Court. It is hereby ordered as follows: That Suit No. FCT/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, be and is hereby granted accelerated hearing in view of the Electoral Time Table released by the 4th Respondent. That the parties are hereby directed to maintain the status quo ante bellum and shall refrain from taking any step or doing any act capable of foisting a fait accompli on the court or otherwise rendering nugatory the proceedings before the trial court.
Every student of law understands that once a party files an action in court, with or without court order, every party is expected to maintain status quo. It is clear that the COA said “maintain” not revert. This is an admission by the COA that since the commencement of proceedings, no party had done anything to adjust its status in such a manner as to foist a fait accompli on the court. The queer interpretation of the nonexistent order of the COA by INEC to adjust the status of ADC is mischievous and criminal. Indeed INEC actually disobeyed the COA that instructed that no party should adjust the status of another till judgement is delivered.
Status quo ante bellum means the state of affairs before the commencement of hostilities. There was never a time that ADC didn’t have leadership. There would never be a time that status quo ante bellum would mean that suddenly ADC had no leadership. This interpretation could only be made by a dubious public officer. The state of affairs before hostilities commenced on 2 September 2025 was that David Mark was the National Chairman of the party whose leadership was born on 29 July 2025 in a NEC meeting attended by Bala Gombe and approved by INEC. It is unconscionable for Joash Amupitan, INEC Chairman, to interpret nonexistent order of COA to mean that hostilities began from 29 July 2025, when every party in ADC was at peace.
The reason for these procedural principles according to the COA is to ensure that the subject matter of the dispute pending before the trial court is not prejudiced. The COA described the subject matter of the case thus: “The brief fact of the case is that dispute allegedly arose from the leadership of a political party.” Incontrovertibly, the subject matter of the case is the leadership of ADC, and the preservatory orders were meant to preserve the leadership of ADC pending trial. The COA is very clear that the subject matter of the case (the leadership of ADC) must not be compromised pending the determination of the case. Is it not ridiculous that Joash Amupitan will prejudice the leadership of ADC in contravention of the preservatory orders of the COA and mischievously turn back to claim that he is obeying non- existent order.
Summarily, a look at the preservatory orders will observe that the COA used the term “parties” rather than the Appellant or Respondent because the order was not meant for any party specifically but a mere restatement of the procedural legal principles for all parties. Strictly speaking both David Mark and INEC were not parties to the suit at the trial court because the only motion that was heard was an ex-parte motion which does not admit other parties. Moreover, INEC is not a judicial body bestowed with the power to interpret judgements of court. It is obvious that there is no nexus between the judgement of the COA and the intentional dubious misinterpretation of the judgement by Joash Amupitan. INEC has become a tool in the hands of the ruling party, APC, to ensure that Tinubu runs unopposed in 2027. This is the real interpretation of INEC’s action, not the nonexistent judgement of the COA.
