The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has come under legal criticism after de-recognising the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) led by former Senate President David Mark. Attah Ochinke, a former Attorney-General of Cross River State and member of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), described INEC's action as legally unsound, arguing that the commission misinterpreted a court order meant to preserve the status quo. The court, Ochinke stated, had directed that the existing leadership remain in place pending a full hearing, which he insists was the David Mark-led executive. Instead, INEC installed an interim arrangement without a recognised leader, a move he called an invention with no basis in law.
Ochinke, also a former chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association in Cross River State, expressed surprise at the decision, particularly given that INEC's chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan, is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and professor of law. He argued that Amupitan should have been able to interpret the court order correctly without relying solely on legal subordinates. The decision, he said, deepens public skepticism about INEC's impartiality, especially as the chairman has previously acknowledged the commission's trust deficit on multiple occasions. Rather than appealing the decision, Ochinke advised seeking a judicial interpretation of the current order, calling an appeal process too slow for the electoral timeline. He denied any APC involvement in opposition party crises, attributing internal conflicts in the PDP, ADC, and Labour Party to internal party actors.
The core issue is not just INEC's decision but the erosion of legal coherence in electoral governance. By creating a "leaderless" structure—a configuration that never existed before—INEC didn't just misapply a court order; it redefined institutional continuity on the fly. This sets a precedent where regulatory bodies can engineer administrative solutions that contradict both factual and legal realities, all under the guise of neutrality. When a commission chaired by a legal scholar implements a position indefensible in law, it signals that institutional credibility is no longer anchored in jurisprudence but in convenience.
Globally, this mirrors a trend where electoral bodies in emerging democracies increasingly become arbiters of political outcomes rather than referees. The weaponisation of administrative delays, ambiguous interpretations, and interim arrangements has become a subtle tool for shaping party viability before ballots are cast. Nigeria's case fits a pattern seen in other democracies where electoral commissions, under pressure, resort to legally fragile decisions that favour pliability over principle—undermining long-term confidence in democratic processes.
For Nigeria and other developing nations, the implication is clear: electoral integrity cannot be sustained if legal consistency is sacrificed for procedural expediency. When a commission contributes to confusion rather than clarity, it weakens public trust at a time when democratic resilience is already strained. This does not favour any one party in the long run—it devalues the entire electoral system.
What to watch is whether ADC's legal team opts for a fast-track interpretation application, which could force INEC to either justify its position in court or retreat from its current stance.
