2027: Between INEC and ADC

by

Reuben ABATI

By Reuben Abati

Members of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) are incensed by the de-recognition of the leadership of their party by Nigeria’s electoral umpire, INEC, relying on a March 12, 2026 judgement of the Court of Appeal in Abuja (Appeal No. CA/ABJ/145/2026) viz: Senator David Mark v. Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe & Ors. This move by the INEC has turned out to be a big, destabilizing blow to the ADC which was fast emerging as the most dominant opposition party to the ruling APC. Prior to the throwing of this curve ball which has now disoriented the ADC and exposed fissures within its ranks, the party had emerged with the second largest number of representatives in the National Assembly, and perhaps from the national to the grassroots level. It boasts among its ranks, political bigwigs such as former Vice President Atiku Abubakar (ex-PDP), Peter Obi (ex-Labour), Rotimi Amaechi (ex-APC), Nasir El-Rufai (ex-APC), Dr. Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso (ex-NNPP). Its advertised Chairman is former Senate President, Senator David Mark, with former Governor of Osun state, Ogbeni Raufu Aregbesola (as Secretary) and a host of other tested politicians and foot soldiers who share more than a casual familiarity with the intrigues, texture and the patterns of the Nigerian political terrain. They are united by one ambition, long articulated by Malam Nasir El- Rufai, now in ICPC anti-corruption detention – which is to remove both President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his ruling party, the All Progressives Congress from power in the 2027 general election. With the arrival of Dr. Kwankwaso, the calculations for the outlook of the likely ADC Presidential ticket reached a frightening pitch. On April 1, INEC burst the ADC bubble. The party is now in a state of animated suspension, if not confusion, and outrage.

The facts of the matter are as follows: On July 29, 2025, Ralph Okey Nwosu, the erstwhile Chairman of the ADC at a NEC meeting of the party resigned his position and ratified the appointment of the present members of the National Working Committee of the party led by Senator David Mark. Nafiu Bala Gombe who was the Deputy National Chairman of the party raised an objection that he should have been the person to take over from Nwosu, not David Mark and others who had just joined the party. He was reminded by the Nwosu-backed group that he had resigned as Deputy Chairman through a letter he signed on May 17, 2025, which had since been forwarded to INEC and duly received and acknowledged by August 12, 2025. Nafiu Bala Gombe denied that he ever resigned. On September 2, 2025, he filed a case at the Federal High Court, Abuja (Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe v. ADC & 4 Ors.), a motion ex parte and a motion on notice, to seek an order of interlocutory injunction restraining David Mark and others from parading themselves as leaders of the ADC. The matter was heard by Justice Emeka Nwite on September 4. His Lordship did not grant the ex parte application but he ordered that parties be put on notice. Upon which the David Mark-led ADC group went ahead to file an appeal. On March 12, the Appeal Court gave a preservatory order to wit: “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.” A cost of N2 million was awarded in favour of the first respondent.

The David Mark-led group continued with their preparations for the 2027 general election with the registration of members, including defections into the party, meetings, preparations for congresses scheduled for April 9, 2026 and the party Convention on April 14, 2026. It was obviously at this point that Nafiu Gombe kicked again. INEC reportedly received two letters: one from Suleiman Usman SAN & Co, urging INEC not to recognize Nafiu Gombe on account of the pending suit in the Federal High Court, Abuja; the second letter came from Summit Law Chambers asking INEC to enforce the judgment of the Court of Appeal which required INEC to (a) cease recognition of Senator David Mark and Ogbeni Rauf Aregebesola as National Chairman and National Secretary respectively of ADC; (b) remove their names from the Commission’s portal; and (c) refrain from dealing with or recognizing any actions taken by them in respect of the party in line with the preservation orders made by the Court of Appeal. Subsequently, Summit Law Chambers protested that INEC erred to have invited the David Mark group to a political parties meeting on Tuesday, March 24 and for monitoring a NEC meeting of the group. After what INEC calls “a careful consideration” of court processes – both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal - the body resolved to maintain the “status quo ante bellum”, remove the names of Senator Mark and Ogbeni Aregbesola from its portal pending the determination of the case at the Federal High Court, Abuja. It also refused to accede to the request of Nafiu Gombe’s lawyers to allow him take over the leadership of the party.  Thus, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) was thrown into limbo. INEC insists that it has only complied with judicial orders strictly, and with neutrality and impartiality in the matter.

Nonetheless, hell has since broken loose between INEC and ADC. It is not the kind of hell fire President Donald Trump has promised in Iran but it is still hot enough to raise serious questions about the state of Nigerian democracy, the plight of the opposition, the prospects of Nigeria’s 2027 general election, the conduct of political parties and the role of civil society. It would appear that the major source of conflict has to do with the interpretation of the phrase “status quo ante bellum”, referred to by the Court of Appeal and relied upon by INEC, which would now hereafter occupy a prominent place in the grammar of politics in Nigeria. Status quo ante bellum: While this phrase may be clear to any sophomore student of law, it can be confusing to an average Nigerian. Nigeria’s official language is English, and that as a second language is still a major test for many of our compatriots who may prefer to speak pidgin English or better still their native tongues.  To foist upon such people another layer of expression, such as Latin, a dead language for that matter, may serve the purpose of lawyers who are used to such imponderables and pompous turns of phrase, an affectation of being learned, but to the ordinary man, those Latin phrases may seem arcane. Nigerian lawyers and judges can learn a lesson here. They should begin to speak clearly, concisely and precisely. Judges should give clear, exact orders, and not speak tongue-in-cheek. 

On Thursday, April 2, the ADC, led by Senator David Mark held a World Press Conference at the Musa Yar’Adua Conference Centre in Abuja where the group submitted that the INEC Chairman acted beyond his powers, took sides, and chose the path of dishonour by misinterpreting what the Court of Appeal meant by status quo ante bellum. The whole idea of this restraining order is to prefer the res, that is the substance of the dispute, until the court determines the issue(s) at stake. But with conflicting interests at stake, what the status was before the commencement of hostilities is now a subject of differing interpretations.  The Appeal Court could have been clearer by putting a specific date to that part of its judgment. Our courts must learn to use Latin, if they must, rather sparingly, and pay greater attention to clarity. But now that there is a dispute over what is status and what ante bellum means, and INEC has taken a decision based on its own reading, the best place to still return to for a proper interpretation is the court of law. Those who are threatening to resort to self-help and adopt extra-judicial means to push their point are better advised not to. Rather than keep whimpering, the ADC should file an application of urgency to ask the Appeal Court to interpret its status quo ante bellum, while arguing that the emergence of the David Mark group in the ADC being “a completed act,” there is no ante bellum to speak of.

Senator David Mark, and his allies have continued to pour out a lot of vituperations. INEC was specifically accused of working for the President and the ruling party to impose the dictatorship of a one-party rule on Nigeria in 2027. The ADC faction told Professor Joash Amupitan very bluntly that his INEC cannot determine the leadership of any political party. They said he can no longer be trusted and so, he and his National Commissioners should either resign or be sacked, because in any case, the ADC would go ahead with the party’s Congresses on April 9 and the Convention on April 14, and there is nothing that INEC can do. They insisted that whether INEC likes it or not, ADC would be part of the forthcoming Gubernatorial elections in Ekiti and Osun States! “This attack on democracy will not stand!”, Senator David Mark declared.

I had an hour-long interview with the INEC Chairman, which has since been aired on Arise News, first as a preview, and then a fuller interview subsequently. Professor Amupitan reacted to all the allegations and denied being used as anybody’s tool. He affirmed that he would be eventually remembered as a fair-minded umpire who respected the rule of law and served his country to the best of his ability. INEC even issued another statement to proclaim its good faith.  It has been a tough week for INEC. When it was not ADC attacking the organization including being labelled “an organization of criminals”, other voices in civil society have claimed without proof that Professor Amupitan was blackmailed into getting INEC to take the position it took, or that INEC officials were given landed properties by the ruling party to disenfranchise the majority of Nigerians through such schemes as voter registration, and the revalidation of Voter’s cards.

The INEC Chairman is a victim of circumstance. The opposition never gave him a chance since he assumed office. They have ploughed upon him and INEC their misgivings about the 2027 electoral process. But the truth is that the allegation of Nigeria becoming a one-party State is a weighty one. It is not in anybody’s interest. The opposition says we are on our way to a one-party rule, and that the ruling APC, by sabotaging other political parties, and using INEC or other agents, is determined to ensure that Nigerians do not have any option besides the incumbent President in 2027. The hallmark of democracy is the competition and the scope for freedom and choice that it offers. A ruling party that becomes a one-party rule would ultimately shoot itself in the foot. Such a party would leave no room for the expression of differences, invariably become a pressure cooker, with various competing interests, that being the pristine nature of politics, until the same party thinking it has secured ultimate power begins to implode under the weight of its own contradictions. In a multi-party, plural, participatory democracy, the possibility of an alternative introduces a diversity that imbues the people generally with hope that change is possible. It would not be in the interest of the ruling APC in Nigeria to lock the people in a cage. There are 21 political parties on the field. The prominent ones among them: the PDP, ADC, Labour, NNPP and the SDP all blame their internal problems on the APC.  But how are the parties themselves, and their leaders? The major problem should be traced to the character of Nigerian politicians and the state of our political parties. It is sad that most Nigerian political parties are cash and carry Special Purpose Vehicles, and hence, the parties are fragile, the members are peripatetic, the pattern of loyalties is seasonal.

Some of the opposition parties have threatened that they would boycott the 2027 elections. Political boycott of elections may be symbolic and raise questions of legitimacy, but it is only those who vote that win. Leaders of such boycotts tend to end up in exile after the ruling party would have had its way as we have seen in Cote d’Ivoire, Cameroon, Uganda, Togo and Republic of Benin.  Those opposition parties including the Taminu Turaki-led faction of the PDP and the African Action Congress (AAC) toying with the idea of a boycott in 2027 would only make it easier for the APC to win. A boycott may make the news, but it does not have any legal effect. Voter turn-out may be low but only the votes available will be counted.  The ADC at its press conference on April 2 called on the international community to keep an eye on the Nigerian situation. Okay. To do what exactly? The best option going forward for the professional political class, whatever may be the label, is to put Nigeria first. INEC also has an urgent duty to rebuild confidence and trust across board, and avoid the trap that has already been carefully, and so far, successfully laid for it, convicted as it is, even before trial.