Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, has defended the decision of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) not to file any process in the ongoing appeal involving the African Democratic Congress (ADC) at the Supreme Court, describing the move as consistent with legal principles guiding the commission’s conduct.
In a statement, Falana confirmed that INEC neither supported nor opposed the ADC’s appeal, which has already been heard by the apex court and is awaiting judgment.
He argued that the electoral body’s decision to refrain from participation reflects its constitutional obligation to remain neutral in internal party disputes.
“It has been confirmed that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) did not file any process to either support or counter the appeal of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) at the Supreme Court,” Falana said.
“The decision of the INEC not to take sides in the ADC appeal that has been heard and fixed for judgment by the Supreme Court is in line with the law which requires the body to maintain neutrality in all intra party feuds.”
To support his position, the senior lawyer cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Attorney-General of the Federation v Atiku Abubakar (2007), where both INEC and the Nigeria Police Force were criticised for actions perceived as partisan.
Quoting from the judgment delivered by the late Justice Pius Aderemi, Falana highlighted the court’s strong stance on neutrality: “In the performance of its duty, the Nigeria Police Force must manifestly demonstrate impartiality. It must not lean to one side against the other. It must be apolitical. It must not take part in any disputation which has political coloration.”
The judgment also emphasised INEC’s responsibility as an unbiased electoral umpire. According to the court, “INEC must never by act of omission or commission place itself in a position where imputations of partiality in favour of one party against another one will be levelled against it. Neutrality must be the watch word of the body, it must always remain fair and focused.”
Falana noted that the apex court had, in that case, criticised both institutions for actions that could undermine public confidence.
He quoted further: “A situation where both of them (the Inspector General of Police and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC) appeal in the instant case is very much in bad taste.
“They have both thrown the quality of impartiality and fairness which they must possess to the winds. Their acts are capable of eroding the public confidence in them.”
“Unknown to them, they may be said, by the public, to be biased and therefore not worthy to be regarded as impartial umpires. This trend must not repeat itself for the good of the nation. It is a sour taste,” the court added.
Relying on this precedent, Falana maintained that INEC’s current stance in the ADC case aligns with the court’s directive and should be upheld as a standard for future conduct.
“In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the Atiku Abubakar’s case above, the Independent National Electoral Commission should henceforth be an independent umpire in the conduct of elections and demonstrate impartiality in intra-party feuds,” he said.
The ADC appeal, which has been argued before the Supreme Court, is now awaiting judgment, with INEC’s neutrality emerging as a key point of legal and political discussion.
The ADC has been embroiled in a leadership tussle since the resignation of its long-time chairman, Ralph Nwosu. Following his exit, a caretaker committee led by former Senate President David Mark claimed control of the party.
But Nafiu Bala, a former deputy national chairman, insisted he never resigned and declared himself the rightful leader. This dispute quickly moved into the courts.
The Federal High Court declined to stop Bala from acting as chairman, and in March 2026 the Court of Appeal ordered both sides to maintain the status quo ante bellum, essentially freezing the party’s leadership until the matter is resolved.
Mark’s faction took the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the appellate court overstepped by interfering in what he calls an internal party matter.
In response to the Court of Appeal’s order, INEC recently announced that it would not recognise either faction. INEC explained that it would refrain from monitoring meetings, congresses, or conventions of the ADC until the Supreme Court delivers its final judgment.