The controversy surrounding the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) handling of the leadership dispute within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) intensified on Friday, as former INEC Director of Legal Services and Voter Education, Oluwole Osaze-Uzzi, challenged the commission’s interpretation of a Court of Appeal order and questioned its decision to halt recognition of rival party factions.
Speaking in an interview with ARISE News on Friday, Osaze-Uzzi argued that INEC’s position was a misreading of the appellate court’s directive and insisted that the commission went beyond what the law required.
Addressing the commission’s decision to suspend engagement with both the David Mark-led faction and the Nafiu Gumbi group pending resolution of the ADC leadership dispute, Osaze-Uzzi said he disagreed with INEC’s conclusions.
“I think I disagree with the conclusions reached by the commission,” he said.
“In its extrapolation and interpretation of that order, I have reservations.”
He stressed that while he had not reviewed the full judgment, his comments were based on the Court of Appeal’s order and publicly available information.
According to him, the appellate court did not instruct INEC to derecognize any faction but merely directed all parties to maintain restraint pending the determination of the substantive matter.
“The court did not say that INEC should withdraw recognition from either faction. It never did say so,” he stated.
“What it said was that all parties should ensure they do not do anything to render nugatory the likely judgment of the court.”
A major point of contention in the legal and political debate is the court’s order that parties return to the status quo ante bellum. Osaze-Uzzi said this phrase had been misinterpreted and remains the core of the dispute.
He argued that the court did not define what the status quo actually was, leaving room for competing interpretations by the regulator and the parties.
“The court was very clear that parties should return to the status quo ante bellum, but did not state what that status quo was,” he said.
“It is now left for interpretation.”
He added that determining the correct reference point may require tracing events back before the litigation began, potentially as far as July when key internal party decisions were made.
Osaze-Uzzi also clarified INEC’s statutory role in monitoring party conventions, stating that the commission’s presence does not validate or invalidate party congresses.
“Whether INEC attends that convention or not does not necessarily invalidate the convention,” he explained.
“The essence of monitoring is not to give validity or withhold validity, but to provide an independent report for the court if disputes arise.”
He further noted that political parties are required to notify INEC at least 21 days before holding conventions, but stressed that failure to attend does not automatically nullify party processes.
Reacting to calls by the ADC faction for the resignation of the INEC Chairman and commissioners, Osaze-Uzzi said such demands must be viewed within constitutional procedures.
“It is a process or procedure for removing a chairman or any member of the commission,” he said.
“We are all guided by provisions of the law.”
However, he cautioned that public perception remains critical to electoral credibility.
“Perception is very important in this process,” he warned.
“If political parties and the public begin to lose trust in the commission, then that becomes a threat to credible elections.”
“INEC must preserve the party, not create a vacuum”
Osaze-Uzzi emphasized that electoral law does not envisage a situation where a political party exists without leadership, arguing that INEC must act to preserve institutional continuity rather than deepen factional crises.
“The law does not envisage that at any given time there will be no leadership in the party,” he said.
“There has to be continuity. The essence is to preserve the party.”
Following an interview with INEC Chairman Professor Joash Amupitan on the same programme, Osaze-Uzzi maintained his position, reiterating that the commission’s interpretation of the court order remained questionable.
He suggested that the “status quo ante bellum” likely predates September when the case formally escalated, possibly tracing back to earlier internal party developments.
“Definitely, status quo ante bellum predates September… probably back to July,” he said.
“There is a valid argument that it goes back to when the dispute first emerged.”
The former INEC legal director’s comments add a fresh layer to the ongoing controversy over the ADC leadership crisis, with legal interpretation of court orders, internal party legitimacy, and INEC’s regulatory authority now at the centre of a widening political dispute.
As both factions prepare for planned party congresses and conventions, the disagreement over the meaning of “status quo ante bellum” and INEC’s role in enforcing it is expected to remain a key flashpoint in Nigeria’s electoral and party governance debate.
Boluwatife Enome
Follow us on:
