The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has dismissed the Independent National Electoral Commission's (INEC) interpretation of a Court of Appeal ruling that led to the withdrawal of recognition of Senator David Mark's National Working Committee (NWC). INEC announced on Wednesday that it was no longer recognising the Mark-led leadership, citing a recent appellate court decision as the basis for its action. The electoral body stated that the judgment invalidated the June 2023 party congress through which Mark's faction emerged, thereby rendering the current NWC unconstitutional. INEC declared that the ADC must now operate under the interim leadership previously appointed by the commission pending a fresh congress.
In response, the ADC, through its National Publicity Secretary, Yomi Ogunsola, rejected INEC's position, insisting that the court ruling did not nullify the June 2023 congress or the leadership that arose from it. The party maintained that the appellate decision only addressed internal disputes and did not empower INEC to撤销 recognition unilaterally. "The judgment is clear, and INEC's conclusion does not reflect its content," Ogunsola said. The ADC argued that the court had restored the status quo ante as of May 2023, which, according to the party, includes the validity of the congress and its outcomes.
The disagreement sets up a potential legal and administrative standoff between the party and the electoral commission. INEC has maintained that its actions are in line with judicial directives and its statutory responsibilities. The ADC, however, plans to challenge INEC's decision legally and operationally, vowing to continue functioning under the existing NWC. What happens next hinges on whether the matter will be escalated to a higher court or resolved through internal party mechanisms approved by INEC.
When INEC says a court ruling forces it to withdraw recognition from Senator David Mark's ADC leadership, it is asserting judicial deference—but the ADC's insistence that the judgment supports its position reveals a dangerous gap between legal interpretation and institutional action. This isn't just about party politics; it's about who gets to decide what a court decision means. If regulatory bodies can unilaterally interpret rulings in ways parties reject, the door opens to selective enforcement. That undermines both party autonomy and public trust in electoral fairness.
