INEC’s delisting decision…flows logically from the Court of Appeal’s status quo order. The commission simply restored the pre-litigation position to avoid foisting any fait accompli on the trial court. Far from overreach, this reflects fidelity to both the Constitution and the Electoral Act, ensuring that no faction gains undue advantage through procedural manoeuvring.
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) faction under Senator David Mark has plunged itself into a profound leadership crisis through choices that were entirely preventable and self-orchestrated. This faction cannot credibly point fingers at the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), or President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for the resulting fallout that saw INEC delist the National Working Committee from its portal and suspend recognition of any its leadership structure. The crisis traces directly to the faction’s decision to seize control of an established party without adhering to the mandatory democratic processes enshrined in law, when it ought to be pursuing legitimate alternatives that would have shielded it from legal entanglements. By ignoring the party’s own constitutional requirements and the broader legal framework governing political associations, the faction invited judicial intervention and the inevitable regulatory response from INEC. This self-inflicted wound not only undermines the faction’s standing but also distracts from the serious business of building a viable opposition in a democracy that demands accountability from all actors.
Consider the sequence of events that led here. In mid 2025, the previous national leadership of the African Democratic Congress, including Chairman Ralph Nwosu, reportedly stepped aside in a move framed as opening the space for fresh direction. A National Executive Committee meeting then ratified Senator David Mark as the interim national chairman, alongside Rauf Aregbesola as secretary. INEC initially updated its records to reflect this change, uploading the new names in September 2025. Yet almost immediately, a rival claim emerged from Nafiu Bala Gombe, who asserted that he had not resigned his prior position and that the party’s constitution required him to assume the chairmanship automatically. Gombe approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking to restrain INEC from recognising the Mark-led team and to affirm his own succession. The Mark faction responded with an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeal, challenging aspects of the trial court’s handling. On 12 March, the Court of Appeal delivered a clear verdict, dismissing the appeal outright. The appellate panel, led by Justice Uchechukwu Onyemenam, upheld a preliminary objection that the appeal was incompetent because it raised issues not properly before the lower court. Beyond the procedural dismissal, the court issued preservative orders, directing all parties, including INEC, to maintain status quo ante bellum – the situation as it existed before the suit commenced – and to refrain from any steps that could prejudice the substantive matter still pending at the Federal High Court. In strict compliance, INEC removed the names of the Mark-led National Working Committee from its portal, since those updates occurred after the suit had been instituted. The commission further announced that it would accept no correspondence from either faction, monitor no congresses or conventions, and engage with neither side until the trial court resolves the dispute on its merits. This was not an act of partisanship or external pressure, but a direct alignment with judicial directive, rooted in the commission’s statutory duty to uphold the integrity of party records.
|
|
At the heart of this matter lies the fundamental legal architecture that governs political parties in Nigeria. Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution is unequivocal. The constitution and rules of every political party must provide for the periodical election, on a democratic basis, of its principal officers and members of the executive committee or other governing body. Such elections must occur at regular intervals, not exceeding four years, and the executive must reflect the federal character of the nation, with members drawn from no fewer than two thirds of the states, plus the Federal Capital Territory. This provision exists to prevent arbitrary takeovers and to ensure that leadership emerges through transparent, inclusive processes, rather than backroom arrangements or unilateral declarations. The Mark faction’s emergence, following resignations, did not satisfy these constitutional imperatives. No evidence suggests a full democratic convention was convened, with proper delegate participation, notice, and voting, as required. Instead, the transition relied on an internal ratification that bypassed the very safeguards designed to protect party autonomy and public confidence. When Gombe challenged this as inconsistent with the party constitution, the courts rightly stepped in, because breaches of a party’s own rules become justiciable once they touch on constitutional standards of democratic governance.
Complementing the Constitution is the Electoral Act, 2022, particularly Section 82, which mandates that every registered political party should give INEC at least a twenty one-day notice of any convention, congress, conference, or meeting convened for electing members of its executive committees or nominating candidates. The commission may attend and observe such gatherings to verify that elections occur in a democratic manner, allowing all members or duly elected delegates to vote freely. This section reinforces the principle that internal party affairs are not private enclaves immune to scrutiny. They form part of the democratic ecosystem that INEC is empowered and obligated to monitor. When leadership changes occur outside these parameters or in ways that invite immediate litigation, the commission has no choice but to pause recognition, pending judicial clarity. INEC’s delisting decision therefore flows logically from the Court of Appeal’s status quo order. The commission simply restored the pre-litigation position to avoid foisting any fait accompli on the trial court. Far from overreach, this reflects fidelity to both the Constitution and the Electoral Act, ensuring that no faction gains undue advantage through procedural manoeuvring.
|
|
|
|---|
When prominent figures in opposition politics fail to do the needful, by either resolving disputes internally through democratic means or launching new platforms, they erode public trust in the entire democratic project. Nigerians watching this saga unfold have every reason to suspect that the unrecognised leaders of the Mark faction are among those attempting to destroy our democracy through unnecessary drama and distractions. Their refusal to accept the legal reality of the Court of Appeal ruling and INEC’s compliance has turned a manageable internal matter into a prolonged spectacle that diverts attention from policy alternatives…
The Mark faction had every opportunity to avoid this quagmire entirely. Nigerian law provides a clear pathway for new political associations to register as parties if they meet the requirements of Section 222 of the 1999 Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act. An association wishing to become a political party can submit its application to INEC, demonstrating nationwide presence, membership thresholds, and a constitution that complies with democratic standards. Several groups have successfully navigated this process in recent years, creating fresh platforms unburdened by historical baggage. The Mark faction could have followed this route, and registered a new entity free from any pre-existing legal obstacles, internal factions, or unresolved disputes. This would have allowed them to build from a clean slate, with leadership elected through properly noticed democratic conventions, under full INEC observation.
Instead, they opted to attempt a hijack of an existing party structure, without apparently conducting basic due diligence on the history of its legal battles. The African Democratic Congress, like many Nigerian parties, had navigated previous internal tensions and constitutional interpretations that made leadership transitions delicate at best. Public records and party documents, available to any serious actor, would have revealed the risks of assuming control through resignation based mechanisms, rather than fresh elections. By ignoring this history and thrusting themselves into an already complex organisational framework, the faction manufactured its own vulnerabilities. This was not an act of strategic boldness, but a reckless gamble that disregarded the very laws meant to foster genuine multiparty competition.
Moreover, the consequences extend far beyond the African Democratic Congress. When prominent figures in opposition politics fail to do the needful, by either resolving disputes internally through democratic means or launching new platforms, they erode public trust in the entire democratic project. Nigerians watching this saga unfold have every reason to suspect that the unrecognised leaders of the Mark faction are among those attempting to destroy our democracy through unnecessary drama and distractions. Their refusal to accept the legal reality of the Court of Appeal ruling and INEC’s compliance has turned a manageable internal matter into a prolonged spectacle that diverts attention from policy alternatives, economic challenges, and governance issues facing the nation. Democracy thrives when parties present coherent visions, compete cleanly, and respect institutional boundaries. It falters when leaders prioritise personal control over procedural integrity, creating chaos that weakens opposition as a whole. The faction’s insistence on blaming external forces only compounds the damage, portraying them as unwilling to accept accountability for choices they alone made.
INEC must remain laser focused on its core mandate and refuse any distraction from this or similar self inflicted party crises. The commission’s role is to register voters, conduct elections, maintain accurate party records, and enforce compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements, not to mediate every internal squabble. By adhering strictly to court orders, as it has done here, INEC upholds the rule of law, which is the bedrock of credible elections. Any deviation would invite accusations of bias and undermine the commission’s independence. Political parties come and go, but INEC’s commitment to neutrality and legal fidelity must endure. The commission should continue monitoring only those activities that fully comply with notice and democratic standards, while allowing the courts to adjudicate disputes without interference. This steadfastness sends a powerful message that no individual or faction stands above the law, regardless of pedigree or political ambition.
Ultimately, the path forward for any serious political actor in Nigeria demands respect for the Constitution, the Electoral Act, and the decisions of competent courts. The Mark led faction must confront the reality that its current predicament is avoidable and self-caused. Had it pursued registration of a fresh party or ensured a genuinely democratic leadership transition within the African Democratic Congress, it would face no delisting, no suspended recognition, and no ongoing distractions.
In the rough and tumble of Nigerian politics, it comes as no surprise that other parties view the crises engulfing the African Democratic Congress with a degree of satisfaction. Every political organisation understands that an opponent mired in internal turmoil is less effective at mounting challenges or mobilising voters. Rival parties will naturally celebrate such self-inflicted wounds, because they create openings for their own advancement. This is the nature of competitive democracy, not evidence of conspiracy. No one should blame any political party that quietly or openly takes advantage of the Mark faction’s missteps. The real issue lies not in the reactions of others, but in the faction’s failure to anticipate and avoid the legal pitfalls that were obvious from the outset. Blaming the All Progressives Congress or President Tinubu for a crisis born of poor judgment and inadequate preparation is both factually baseless and politically immature. It shifts responsibility away from where it belongs, onto institutions and leaders who had no hand in the initial takeover or the subsequent litigation.
Ultimately, the path forward for any serious political actor in Nigeria demands respect for the Constitution, the Electoral Act, and the decisions of competent courts. The Mark led faction must confront the reality that its current predicament is avoidable and self-caused. Had it pursued registration of a fresh party or ensured a genuinely democratic leadership transition within the African Democratic Congress, it would face no delisting, no suspended recognition, and no ongoing distractions. Instead, by choosing the shortcut of hijacking an existing structure without studying its legal history, the faction has created precisely the drama it now decries.
Nigerians deserve opposition parties that model the democratic values they claim to champion. Those who fail in this regard, whether through carelessness or ambition, invite not sympathy but scrutiny. The unrecognised leaders behind this crisis have only themselves to thank for the spotlight now shining on their shortcomings. As the Federal High Court prepares to hear the substantive suit, all eyes remain on whether the faction will learn from this episode or continue to compound its errors. Democracy in Nigeria will be stronger when parties prioritise internal integrity over external blame. The Mark faction still has time to choose the high road, but only if it first acknowledges that the crisis it faces today was manufactured entirely within its own ranks.
INEC will press ahead, undeterred, as it must, and the broader political terrain will continue to reward those who play by the rules, rather than those who seek to bend them for personal gain. The lesson is clear, and it is one that every aspiring leader should internalise before the next electoral cycle intensifies. Self-inflicted wounds heal slowly, but they heal only when the injured party stops pointing elsewhere and begins the necessary work of genuine reform.
Chukwuemerie Uduchukwu, an indigene of Anambra State, writes from Abuja, Nigeria. He can be contacted via [email protected]
