ADC: INEC  Misinterpreted Court Of Appeal Judgment – Fmr. INEC Director Legal Services

By Suleiman Anyalewechi

As the controversy generated by the decision of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to withdraw recognition from the Senator David Mark-led National Executive Council NEC of the African Democratic Congress, ADC, continue to rage, a former Director of Legal Services of the Commission, Oluwale Osaze-Uzzi has faulted its interpretation of  judgment.

He insisted that the presence and/or otherwise of INEC at a political party’s Congress and Convention does not validate or invalidate the exercise.

The Source reports that the nation’s electoral umpire had on Wednesday April 1, 2026, through its National Commissioner and Chairman Information and Voter Education Committee, Mohammed Kudu Haruna, announced its discontinuation of the recognition of the Mark-led ADC leadership, citing a subsisting Court of Appeal judgment directing parties in the ADC leadership tussle  to maintain the status quo ante bellum pending the determination of ongoing legal cases as a major reason.

But speaking on an Arise Television programme  Friday, Osaze-Uzzi insisted that the Commission overshot its boundaries when it interpreted the Court ruling to include the withdrawal of recognition for both parties in the leadership conflict.

While admitting that he has not read the Court judgment beyond what is in the media domain, the former INEC legal Director noted that in interpreting what constitutes “status quo ante bellum” the Commission ought to have limited itself to the state of events before the court proceedings and outcome.

According to him, from available facts, it was clear that as at the time of the said judgment, the Mark-led leadership was already in place and, therefore, should be seen as the status quo that needs to be preserved pending the final determination of the case in Court.

He expressed disagreement with the Commission’s decision to axe the two contending camps in the leadership struggle- Mark-led NEC and the Bala Nafiu Gombe group.

“I think I disagree with the conclusions reached by the Commission. In its extrapolation and interpretation of the order, I have strong reservations.

” From what is in the public domain, the Court of Appeal judgment did not order the INEC not to recognize any of the factions.

“What it said was that all parties should ensure they do nothing to render the ongoing legal cases nugatory”, Osaze-Uzzi noted.

But according to him, the major aspect of the verdict- “that all parties should return to the status quo” – has been grossly misinterpreted by the Commission.

He emphasized that since the Court did not expressly indicate what should be the status quo, there are tendencies for the order to be subjected to varying interpretations by the parties concerned, including the INEC.

However, he explained that a correct and honest interpretation of the order will necessitate the revisiting of events pre-litigation and verdict, probably from July 2025 when some critical internal party decisions were taken.

Further speaking, he explained that what is essentially required of parties is to notify the Commission of its Congresses and Convention within the legal timeframe.

“However, whether INEC attends that convention or not does not necessarily invalidate it.

“The essence of monitoring is not to give validity or withhold validity, but to provide an independent report for the Court in the event of disputes” he added.

According to him, what is actually required is for the parties to notify the INEC, at least, 21days before the said Convention.