.As ADC Reps demand prosecution of INEC Chairman
JONAS EZIEKE, Abuja
The Supreme Court of Nigeria will today, Tuesday hear separate appeals arising from leadership disputes in two opposition parties, the African Democratic Congress and the Peoples Democratic Party.
The appeal by embattled ADC National Chairman, David Mark, is slated for hearing alongside that of the Governor Seyi Makinde-backed factional leadership of the PDP, led by Tanimu Turaki (SAN), both challenging judgments of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria.
The PDP crisis is headed for judicial resolution at the apex court, as the Turaki-led faction is challenging the appellate court decision, which nullified its national convention and leadership structure.
The faction had insisted that the judgment, if allowed to stand, would destabilise the party and had, therefore, approached the Supreme Court for a final determination of the dispute.
Mark, a former Senate President, is seeking an order to stay the execution of the March 12 appellate court judgment affecting the leadership of the ADC, pending the determination of his appeal.
A hearing notice in Appeal No: SC/CV/180/2026, between Mark and Nafiu-Bala Gombe and four others, is fixed for April 14 for the proceeding. The notice, issued through the litigation department of the apex court, was sighted in Abuja.
The notice, issued through the litigation department of the apex court, was sighted in Abuja on Sunday.
The date coincides with an earlier hearing scheduled before Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in a related matter.
However, the lower court may step down its proceedings in deference to the apex court, in line with the hierarchy of courts.
In the appeal, Mark listed Gombe, the ADC, Rauf Aregbesola, the Independent National Electoral Commission, and former ADC national chairman, Ralph Nwosu as 1st to 5th respondents.
Through his lawyer, Realwan Okpanachi, Mark is asking the court to stay execution of the appellate court’s judgment and restrain INEC from recognising any person other than him and the current national officers of the party, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
He also sought an order restraining INEC from tampering with the party’s leadership structure as presently constituted under him, as well as an order staying further proceedings in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025 before Justice Nwite pending the determination of the appeal.
The application, filed pursuant to constitutional provisions and the Supreme Court Rules, is supported by 12 grounds.
Okpanachi stated that the Court of Appeal, in its March 12 judgment in Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CV/145/2026, directed parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum.
He alleged that Gombe had relied on the order to write to INEC, urging the commission not to recognise Mark and other national officers of the ADC, describing the move as an attempt to enforce the judgment.
According to him, Mark filed a notice of appeal on March 16, while the record of appeal was transmitted on March 31 and duly entered before the apex court.
“Unless this application is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeal will be enforced and the appeal rendered nugatory,” the lawyer argued, adding that the appeal raised substantial issues of law and that the balance of justice favours granting the application.
Confirming the development to our correspondent, the spokesperson for the ADC, Bolaji Abdullahi, said both the Supreme Court matter and the related case before the Federal High Court were slated for the same day.
“Yes. The information I have is that they are scheduled on the same day. I don’t know if it’s the same time, but it’s the same day,” he said.
It was reported that INEC had, on April 1, removed the names of Mark and Aregbesola from its official portal as national chairman and national secretary of the ADC, respectively, following the appellate court judgment.
In response, Mark, through another counsel, Sulaiman Usman (SAN), filed a motion before the Federal High Court on April 7, seeking an order compelling INEC to restore their names as they were before the suit was instituted, as well as an accelerated hearing of the case.
Justice Nwite subsequently fixed April 14 for the hearing.
The dispute arose from a suit filed by Gombe, a former Deputy National Chairman of the party, who is challenging the legitimacy of Mark and Aregbesola’s emergence as party leaders.
He argued that their appointments contravened the party’s constitution and the Electoral Act, and urged the court to restrain them from parading themselves as national chairman and national secretary.
Justice Nwite had earlier declined to grant an ex parte motion filed by Gombe, instead directing that all parties be put on notice to show cause why the application should not be granted.
Dissatisfied, the Mark-led leadership approached the Court of Appeal, challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court.
The appellate court subsequently ordered parties to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the case.
Meanwhile, both Mark-led NWC and the factional national chairman, Bala Gombe, have disowned a rival group loyal to the party’s 2023 presidential candidate, Dumebi Kachikwu, describing its members as impostors.
Bala said he was unaware of any National Executive Committee meeting allegedly held by the rival faction, stressing that such a gathering could not stand.
He said, “That’s quite surprising. I’d like to categorically state that any NEC meeting purportedly held by that group is illegitimate and doesn’t represent the true voice of the ADC.
“We weren’t aware of any such meeting, and it’s likely a desperate attempt to undermine our ongoing legal processes.
“Those individuals seen aren’t legitimate members of ADC; they’ve been expelled from the party. As such, they lack the authority to convene any meetings, let alone a party NEC meeting.
“Regarding the mini-convention held in Zaria in 2022, it’s worth noting that INEC was duly notified and monitored the process. We complied fully with all administrative procedures and guidelines to ensure the credibility and transparency of the exercise.
“We maintain that INEC’s decision to freeze relations with ADC is premature and unjustified. We’re engaging with INEC and awaiting the outcome of our court case.
“Any statement supporting INEC’s stance is a misrepresentation of our party’s position. We’ll continue to assert our rights and interests as a registered political party.”
Also reacting, the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Abdullahi, described members of the rival camp as opportunists attempting to exploit the party’s internal challenges.
“They are being opportunistic. But out of the 37 chairmen, how many of them were in that meeting? It is a case of when you face a big challenge, smaller ones will see it as an opportunity to take advantage of you.
“Some of these chairmen have gone to court in the last few weeks, but they could not see it through because the majority of the chairmen dissociated themselves from their action.
“Now, they have a ring leader and a rallying point under someone who has long been expelled from the party. I know a few of them who are reasonable and are being misguided; I hope they retrace their steps on time.
“In the end, it doesn’t matter whether they have now constituted themselves as INEC’s supporters club. In the end, it is the court that will decide.”
The latest development follows a fresh twist in the protracted crisis within the party, after the Kachikwu-backed faction publicly endorsed INEC’s decision to withdraw recognition from the Mark-led leadership.
Earlier, at a press conference in Abuja, the group declared support for INEC’s action, which it said complied with a Court of Appeal judgment.
The faction also rejected the leadership of Bala, insisting he did not emerge through any credible or known process, while accusing Nwosu of attempting to hand over the party structure to non-members allegedly aligned with Mark.
The group, comprising some state chairmen, claimed it held a valid NEC meeting at Kachikwu’s Abuja office, where it took key decisions and produced a new leadership structure.
In a communiqué read by its publicity secretary, Obinna Don Norman, the faction argued that Mark and members of his executive were not qualified to lead the party, having failed to meet the constitutional requirement of two years’ membership.
.as ADC Reps demand prosecution of INEC Chairman
The African Democratic Congress ADC Caucus in the House of Representatives held its inaugural meeting on Sunday, April 12, 2026 to review political developments in the nation and resolved as follows:
The Caucus raised concerns regarding the impartiality and neutrality of the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission, Professor Joash Amupitan, to oversee a free, fair, and credible 2027 general elections. This follows recent public statements and actions by the chairman deemed to be compromising, partisan, and conflicted.
It noted that it has been alleged that he previously made a partisan statement on his personal X account, wherein he expressed support for the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). Additionally, he has been accused of posting content alleging Christian genocide in Nigeria. Although the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has denied that Professor Amupitan is the owner of the X account in question, digital forensic analysis and other online investigations conducted by various sources suggest that the account is indeed his, and the phone number used to create it is registered in his name. This has raised concerns regarding his transparency, integrity, and trustworthiness, particularly given the critical nature of the office he holds, which will have far-reaching implications for the nation.
In light of these inconsistencies and concerns regarding impartiality and integrity, the House Caucus, on Monday, 13th April 2026, hereby calls for the removal of Prof. Amupitan from office and advocates for his prosecution, in order to safeguard the nation against an avoidable descent into undemocratic practices.
The Caucus is gravely concerned about the ostensibly undemocratic actions taken by INEC, under the leadership of Prof. Amupitan, which appears to deny the ADC the opportunity to participate in the forthcoming elections. This is being achieved through the perpetuation of a leadership crisis within the party, whereby INEC has abdicated its responsibility as an impartial arbiter and instead intervened in the party’s internal affairs. Specifically, the commission seems to be recognizing an illegitimate leadership faction, contrary to the authentic leadership of Senator David Mark, which had previously been acknowledged and certified by INEC itself, having met the requisite criteria, as evidenced by a recent affidavit issued by the Commission.
We note that the Commission, in collusion with certain elements within the judiciary, is actively working to undermine the aspirations of the ADC, thereby preventing the party from fielding candidates in the forthcoming elections, through duplicitous means that serve to obstruct inclusivity within the democratic process.
In fact, credible information at our disposal suggest that certain individuals within the judiciary and INEC are collaborating to influence the outcome of a case coming up on Tuesday, April 14, 2026 regarding the leadership question in the ADC, potentially impacting the recognition of a discredited faction.
In fact, Section 83 (5) in the Electoral Act 2026 clearly prohibits any court of law in Nigeria from entertaining any case concerning party Congresses. The section says –
“S. 83 (5) “… No Court in Nigeria shall entertain jurisdiction over any suit or matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party.”
S. 83 (6) further provides as follows :
“Where such action is brought in negation of this provision –
(a) No interim or interlocutory injunction shall be entertained by the Court, but the Court shall suspend its ruling and deliver it at the stage of final judgment and shall give accelerated hearing to the matter.
(b) The Court shall, at the conclusion of the matter, impose costs of not less than ₦10,000,000.00 on the counsel who filed the action and not less than ₦10,000,000.00 on the Plaintiff/Applicant and in addition to payment to the Commission of any cost, including solicitors’ fees incurred by it where joined as a party.”
Sadly, that’s what INEC is enabling by its actions and pronouncements concerning the internal affairs of the ADC.
But we are vigilant and have concluded plans, on behalf of the Nigerian people, to
submit a petition before the National Judicial Council, NJC, to the effect that politically exposed judicial officers, as recently outlined by the NBA president, Afam Osigwe, SAN, be made to undergo investigations and possible removal from the Bench.
As the ADC Caucus in the House of Representatives, we are compelled to act in response to the existential threat to our democracy. With critical segments of society, including the Nigerian Bar Association, civil society, media, and citizens, losing faith in the judiciary and electoral authorities, it is imperative that all Nigerians of goodwill transcend partisan divisions and prioritize rescuing our faltering democracy.
It is indeed disheartening to observe that even during the military era, when laws often contained ouster clauses, the judiciary still boasted esteemed jurists such as the late Chukwudifu Oputa, Niki Tobi, and Kayode Eso, Mohammed Uwais, et cetera, who delivered discerning judgments despite the authoritarian regime. We can, therefore, only surmise that these revered legal luminaries would be deeply disturbed in the great beyond by the current trend of questionable judgments, contradictory interim decisions, and overt judicial overreach, which appear to emanate from the very chambers of justice that was once adorned with distinction.
We concur with the position of the NBA president, who only days ago expressed concerns over the growing perception of judges as beneficiaries of political patronage, stating that it erodes public trust in the justice system. The NBA president had lamented the practice of politicians gifting cars to judges, suggesting it compromises their neutrality and demeans the judiciary. “It demeans the judges. It demeans the judiciary,” he said. He emphasized that judicial needs should be addressed through proper budgetary processes, allowing courts to manage their own affairs rather than relying on public display of largesse, which undermine judicial integrity and independence.
INEC must not only be independent in name but also demonstrate impartiality, transparency, credibility, and trustworthiness in its actions. However, current public perception suggests a disconnect from these ideals.
For a better society
Follow us across our platforms:
Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/championnewsonline/
Facebook – https://web.facebook.com/championnewsonline
LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/company/champion-newspapers-limited/
https://x.com/championnewsng/
You can also like and comment on our YouTube videos.
https://youtu.be/QIBfD1tT80w?si=R4Qf3so2LxYu3GC2
