The Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Joash Amupitan, has clarified why the commission declined to recognise the faction of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) linked to David Mark, insisting the move was strictly guided by law and not political bias.
Speaking on Arise TV, Amupitan dismissed allegations of partiality, explaining that INEC acted in line with a Court of Appeal directive requiring all parties to maintain status quo ante bellum—the condition that existed before the dispute began—pending the final ruling of the Federal High Court.
He noted that the commission’s priority was to avoid any step that could interfere with ongoing legal proceedings or influence the court’s final decision.
According to Amupitan, the dispute escalated after legal challenges were filed over party leadership. While the matter was still before the court, Mark filed an interlocutory appeal in September 2025, which lasted until March 2026 before being dismissed by the appellate court.
The Court of Appeal, he explained, not only threw out the appeal but also issued clear directives: the case should be fast-tracked, and all parties must refrain from actions that could alter the situation or undermine the authority of the court.
INEC, he said, did not act on initial reports of the ruling until it received official communication. By mid-March, the commission got conflicting letters—one from Mark’s camp urging preservation of the status quo, and another from representatives of Nafiu Bala insisting he should be recognised as the party’s leader.
Faced with these opposing positions, INEC consulted its legal and electoral monitoring teams. Initially, the commission considered observing party activities while awaiting further clarity.
However, the situation became more complicated after another legal application surfaced, seeking to stop INEC from recognising or monitoring any activities organised by Mark’s faction until the court delivers a final judgment.
Tensions heightened further when the faction reportedly planned to proceed with congresses and primaries despite the pending case. Amupitan warned that such actions could violate court directives and disrupt the judicial process.
He stressed that INEC’s interpretation of status quo ante bellum required a return to the position before the crisis—not merely maintaining the current situation.
In conclusion, the INEC chairman reaffirmed that the commission’s decision was purely legal, aimed at protecting the integrity of the court process, and not influenced by politics. He added that INEC will continue to comply with all judicial orders until the matter is conclusively resolved.