Prof. Amupitan Breaks Silence on Derecognition of ADC Faction, Gives Real Reason

The Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Joash Amupitan, has explained the reasons behind the commission’s decision to derecognise a faction of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), stating that the move was based on compliance with court orders.

Speaking during an interview on Arise TV, Amupitan dismissed claims that the commission acted with bias against the faction aligned with David Mark. He said INEC’s decision followed a careful interpretation of a Court of Appeal directive requiring all parties to maintain *status quo ante bellum* pending the determination of a substantive suit before the Federal High Court.

According to the INEC chairman, the legal principle of *status quo ante bellum* refers to restoring the situation to what it was before the dispute began, rather than maintaining a contested arrangement.

Amupitan explained that the leadership crisis within the ADC led to multiple legal actions, including an interlocutory appeal filed by Mark on September 18, 2025. The appeal, which lasted until March 12, 2026, was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The court also ordered an accelerated hearing of the substantive case, noting that INEC had already released its election timetable.

He said the appellate court issued additional directives instructing all parties not to take any steps that could undermine the authority of the trial court or render its proceedings ineffective.

The INEC chairman disclosed that the commission initially became aware of the judgment through media reports but refrained from taking action until it received official communication. Subsequently, INEC received separate letters from lawyers representing both factions, each presenting differing interpretations of the court’s ruling.

While the faction linked to Mark urged the commission to maintain the existing structure, another group insisted that INEC should recognise an alternative leadership based on the court’s directive.

Amupitan said the conflicting positions prompted consultations within INEC, involving its legal department and Electoral Party Monitoring unit. The issue became more pressing after the commission was notified of a planned National Executive Committee meeting by the Mark faction.

Further complications arose when INEC received a motion seeking to restrain both the faction and the commission from recognising or monitoring any activities organised by the group pending the court’s decision.

Amupitan noted that concerns intensified after the faction announced plans to proceed with congresses and primaries scheduled for April 9, 2026, despite the ongoing litigation.

He said allowing such actions could violate the Court of Appeal’s directive and potentially create a situation that would prejudice the outcome of the case before the Federal High Court.

The INEC chairman maintained that the commission’s decision was guided strictly by legal considerations and the need to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.

He added that INEC would continue to act in accordance with court orders while awaiting the final determination of the dispute.