The Courts, INEC, and Political Parties: Guardians of Democracy or Its Saboteurs?

First half of the article

Democracies fail not only when institutions are captured, but also when institutions, acting within their mandates, produce outcomes that weaken the system they are meant to protect. At the center of democracy are three guardians: political parties, electoral umpires, and the courts.

When these institutions act with clarity, coordination, and discipline, democracy strengthens. When they act with ambiguity, delay, or procedural weakness—inadvertently or deliberately—the result erodes trust across the system.

On April 1, 2026, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) dropped a bombshell. It announced the withdrawal of recognition for the Senator David Mark-led National Working Committee (NWC) of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) while refusing to recognize Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe as acting National Chairman, pending the substantive suit at the Federal High Court. INEC based its decision on the status quo ante bellum ordered by the Court of Appeal on March 12, 2026.

This unfolding leadership crisis is not just a party dispute. It is a textbook case of how weak institutional guardrails, unclarified judicial orders, and overly cautious regulation can erode the foundations of multi-party democracy.

The Background

In law, as in system engineering, the sequence of events is instructive:

•            May 17, 2025: A resignation letter was reportedly issued by the ADC Deputy National Chairman, Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe.

•            July 29, 2025: ADC NEC meeting (observed by INEC) dissolved Nwosu-led leadership (with Hon Nafiu Bala in attendance) and installed a Mark-led caretaker structure.

•            August 12, 2025: The alleged resignation was transmitted to INEC.

•            September 2, 2025: Nafiu filed suit at the Federal High Court, seeking recognition as acting National Chairman and restraining INEC from recognizing the Mark-led leadership.

•            4 September, 2025: Justice Emeka Nwite declined interim injunctions but directed respondents to show cause.

•            September 9, 2025: INEC updated its portal recognizing the Mark-led leadership.

•            December 18, 2025: Mark-led ADC filedan appeal challenging jurisdiction.

•            March 12, 2026: Court of Appeal ordered status quo ante bellum.

•            April 1, 2026: INEC withdrew recognition of all leadership.

The legal term status quo ante bellumis defined as: the state of affairs (status quo)existing before the war (ante bellum).Before Nafiu’s litigation, ADC had an INEC-observed leadership structure from the July 29 NEC meeting.This raises a critical question: what, precisely, was“the state existing before the war”the court intended to preserve?

The Court

The courts are central to preserving democratic order. The doctrine of status quo ante bellum prevents actions that may prejudice a case—but it requires precision. What legal reality is being preserved?

What exact moment defines the “status quo”? The period before the July 29 NEC transition, before Nafiu’s September 2 filing, before the September 9 INEC recognition, or the December 18 Mark-led appeal filing? What was Nafiu Bala’s legally recognized position at each of these critical points? A reasonable interpretation would be the preservation of the leadership structure existing before any judicial intervention—particularly one already operational, observed by INEC, and with Nafiu Bala in attendance.

In a time-sensitive environment,unclear preservative orders risk competing interpretations and instability.

The INEC

INEC—led by a professor of law—adopted a maximally cautious approach framed as neutrality—but neutrality without clarity can paralyze institutions. Institutional prudence requires both caution and procedural discipline. From a systems perspective, ambiguity at the point of instruction should trigger clarification—not execution.

Acting on an undefined baseline introduces instability, particularly in politically sensitive environments. INEC should have transferred the burden of clarification back to the source of authority—the Court of Appeal—to protect its neutrality.By acting without returning to the court, it invited suspicion of partiality—a leadership vacuum in a major opposition party.

Already, Nigerians’ trust in INEC is fragile, and Professor Joash Amupitan, SAN, should know that perception is reality. Unless INEC deliberately embraces restraint in intraparty affairs,such perception is dangerous to democratic stability. The consequences are immediate. ADC’s planned congresses and national convention are now at risk, threatening its participation in upcoming governorship elections in Ekiti (June)…

Continue reading the complete column on the publisher’s website.