Citing a Court of Appeal ruling, INEC recently withdrew recognition for groups laying claim to the leadership of the opposition ADC.
Legal practitioners have differed on the Independent National Electoral Commission's (INEC) interpretation of a Court of Appeal ruling that has been a source of dispute between the electoral commission and the fast-growing opposition party, the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
Citing the court ruling, INEC suspended the recognition for any group laying claims to the leadership of the ADC, whether it is the David Mark-led National Working Committee (NWC) or the one led by Nafiu Bala, who is challenging Mr Mark's leadership.
Both factions have protested at INEC headquarters in Abuja, with each demanding recognition by the electoral umpire.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
A timeline of dispute
In July 2025, a coalition of opposition leaders led by Atiku Abubakar adopted the ADC to field a flagbearer that would challenge President Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the 2027 election.
On 29 July 2025, a new caretaker committee, headed by David Mark as national chairman and Rauf Aregbesola as national secretary, emerged, following the resignation of the previous party executives led by Ralph Nwosu.
On 9 September 2025, INEC recognised the new ADC leadership and published their particulars on its website.
Meanwhile, Nafiu Bala, a former national vice chairman of the party, challenged the arrangement at the Federal High Court in Abuja, arguing that he should assume leadership in line with the party's constitution.
On 2 September 2025, days before INEC's recognition of the new executives, Mr Bala filed a lawsuit against Mr Mark's leadership at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
But Mr Mark's group filed an interlocutory appeal at the Court of Appeal, which was dismissed in a ruling delivered on 12 March.
In the ruling, the appellate court also ordered that the parties, including INEC, which is listed as the fourth respondent, "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."
Days later, on 16 March, INEC received letters from both factions, each with different requests.
Mr Bala's group, represented by Summit Law Chambers, asked the commission to recognise it, citing the judgement of the appeal court.
On the other hand, Mr Mark's group, represented by Suleiman Usman SAN & Co, asked INEC not to recognise Mr Bala as the party's chairperson on the account that the substantive suit about the leadership dispute was pending before the Federal High Court.
Meanwhile, another group of ADC members loyal to its presidential candidate in the 2023 election, Dumebi Kachikwu, emerged, claiming to be the authentic leadership of the party.
INEC's decision
Citing the appellate court ruling, INEC said it would no longer deal with either faction until the substantive suit is ruled on, saying it is refraining from taking any steps that could prejudice the case.
INEC said it interpreted the status quo ante bellum as the state of affairs that existed before 2 September 2025, which is the date the initial lawsuit regarding the ADC leadership dispute was filed at the Federal High Court.
The commission declined Mr Nafiu's request to be recognised as the national chairman pending the outcome of the case.
The electoral body also said that it would remove from its portal the names of members of the party's NWC led by Mr Mark, which was uploaded on 9 September, days after the suit was filed.
"The Commission shall not... receive any further communication or deal with any of the parties or groups pertaining to the affairs of the party and will not monitor any meeting, congress or convention convened on behalf of the ADC by any group until the matter is decided by the Federal High Court, Abuja so as not to do any act capable of foisting a fait accompli on the court or otherwise rendering nugatory the proceedings before the trial court," INEC said.
ADC disagree
But the Mr Mark-led ADC disagreed with INEC's interpretation and its decision to stop recognising Mr Mark-led NWC.
The group claims that the true status quo ante bellum is the leadership of the caretaker committee, which was inaugurated on 29 July 2025.
It also rejected INEC's decision to leave the party without a recognised leadership, accusing the electoral commission of inventing "a status quo that never existed" because there was never a time when the ADC lacked a duly constituted leadership.
The group said INEC cannot rely on the 9 September 2025, when it uploaded the names of the ADC leadership on its website, but on 29 July 2025, when the leadership of the party was changed at a NEC meeting.
It also insisted that Mr Bala had duly resigned his position and couldn't have approached a court to fight for it. But he has denied resigning from the position. Although the group presented a resignation letter said to have been signed by him, he insisted his signature was forged.
Lawyers speak
Meanwhile, legal practitioners have differed on INEC's interpretation of the court ruling and the decision that followed.
Ume Chukwuka-Machukwu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), says INEC's interpretation runs contrary to the position of the constitution, which places a premium on party politics.
Mr Chukwuka-Machukwu argued that political parties play a constitutionally defined role in Nigeria's democracy by providing alternatives in governance and must, therefore, remain functional despite internal disputes.
He explained that the constitution places significant importance on political parties because the country operates a party-based democratic system, and as such, any interpretation affecting political parties, including actions by INEC, should ensure they remain active and capable of fulfilling their democratic responsibilities.
"The idea of INEC de-recognising all the parties, to me, certainly is going against what the constitution provides," he said.
"Status quo is to the extent that the party must have an organ that is prolonging, projecting its views in national politics. Not that the party will now be rendered prostrate. And so, if the dispute in the court goes on for the next five years, ADC will be rendered prostrate? No, that's not the idea."
According to the lawyer, the existence of a dispute within a party does not justify rendering it inactive. He maintained that the principle of maintaining the status quo ante bellum means preserving the party's existing structure prior to litigation, noting that no court order has nullified that structure.
Mr Chukwuka-Machukwu added that this pre-existing structure should continue to manage the party's affairs, including candidate nominations, primaries, and other political activities, until a court delivers a contrary judgment.
"The interpretation of the status quo of INEC by recognising the two parties means as if the ADC will no longer function throughout the disputes. That is wrong. There was a party, and there was a structure before going to court. That is the status quo," he said.
"There was a party, there is a structure before going to court. And no court order has set aside that structure. That is the structure that will continue to give, bring life into ADC until a different judgment is given. Until that order is made, the structure that was there before going to court will be the structure that will project the views and the administration of the party, including nomination when necessary."
The legal practitioner further cautioned that weakening opposition parties could create a political vacuum, limit choices for voters, and ultimately undermine democratic principles as enshrined in the constitution.
"There is a need for the party to meet up with the timetable of INEC. How would it now do if this dispute continues for the next two years? So, invariably, ADC will not nominate candidates. It will not go to primary. It will not go for anything. It will not go for convention. No, that is wrong. That is projecting the law too, in a pedantic manner," he said.
Also, Abdul Mahmud faulted INEC's handling of the situation, arguing that the commission ought to have sought clarification from the Court of Appeal rather than interpreting the order in a way that effectively sidelines it from neutrality.
Mr Mahmud said the central issue lies in determining the correct point in time that the court intended to preserve. While acknowledging that preservative orders are meant to prevent any party from gaining an advantage, he questioned whether the relevant reference point should be before the 2 September 2025 lawsuit or before the 29 July 2025 leadership change.
"INEC should have approached the Court of Appeal for clarification of its preservative order to "maintain status quo ante bellum". Instead, it chose to act as an adverse umpire rather than a neutral arbiter," he wrote.
However, Richard Ahonaruogho, also a SAN, said INEC has not erred in its interpretation of the court order.
Mr Ahonaruogho said the electoral commission has simply done what the court ordered in a suit that both factions of the ADC are parties to.
He said INEC was in fact 'gratuitous' by informing them about its decision not to recognise any primary or conventions held before the substantive suit is decided.
"The Court of Appeal has only stated the position that is the law... INEC is just helping to clear the air that 'should you not advise yourselves properly, both party A and party B of the same party, then your exercise will have been a nullity, will have been a futility," he said.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Mr Ahonaruogho said INEC's information to the party presents them with an opportunity to reconcile themselves and present a position to the commission.
He said the party has enough time to go and reconcile its leadership and present it to the court, get a judgement and present it to INEC.
He also said the accusation that INEC's interpretation was influenced by the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) was "unnecessary and diversionary".
The legal practitioner warned that the party risks losing both its resources spent on conventions, primary elections and actual elections if it goes ahead with its activities, as it will be considered a nullity.
"Should you (ADC) emerge the winner of any election, be it the presidential, the governorship, the National Assembly, the state assembly - should your candidates, which emerges from any of the factions, emerge as the winner at the elections next year, the person that has the next highest number of votes will be declared the winner," Mr Ahonaruogho said.
Another lawyer, Bodunde Opeyemi, argued that INEC's position is firmly rooted in law and stems from the Court of Appeal's directive to maintain the status quo ante bellum.
Mr Opeyemi explained that the suit, filed on 2 September 2025, triggered the need to preserve the situation as it existed before litigation began.
He explained that the appellate court's order is clear and binding, requiring all parties to refrain from actions that could undermine the pending case. Citing established Supreme Court authorities, he said such preservative orders are meant to freeze both the legal and factual circumstances until the substantive matter is decided.
According to him, INEC had no discretion in the matter and was legally obligated to avoid recognising any faction.
"This order admits of no ambiguity. Status quo ante bellum means a strict reversion to, and preservation of, the state of affairs as it existed before 2nd September 2025, when the suit was instituted. It is a binding command prohibiting any alteration of the res," he said.
"The Supreme Court has settled this position in A.G. Federation v. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 1, holding that parties must not take steps capable of prejudicing pending proceedings or presenting the court with a fait accompli."
