The Katsina State Chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Lawal Tukur-Batagarawa, has dismissed the Independent National Electoral Commission's (INEC) derecognition of the David Mark-led national leadership of the party, calling the action "wrong and mischievous." Speaking in Katsina on April 5, 2026, Batagarawa argued that INEC misinterpreted a court ruling which had directed that the status quo be maintained in the party pending further judicial determination. He stated that the judgment did not authorize the dissolution of the existing leadership, and any such interpretation only sowed confusion among members and the public. The dispute stems from a lawsuit filed by party member Nafi'u Bala, which prompted the court to freeze leadership changes until the matter is fully resolved.
Batagarawa emphasized that the ADC's current national and state structures remain valid and fully operational. He described INEC's move as a disruption to the party's internal processes, particularly as preparations are underway for party congresses at various levels and a national convention set for April 18, 2026. The Katsina chapter, he said, has already begun mobilizing members and stakeholders to participate in the upcoming party activities. He urged party members to remain united and avoid panic, assuring them that the legal system would ultimately clarify the leadership issue. The ADC chairman affirmed that the party would pursue legal redress to challenge INEC's action and protect the integrity of its leadership.
INEC's intervention in the ADC leadership crisis risks deepening internal divisions rather than resolving them, especially when the court had explicitly ordered the preservation of the status quo. By acting on what the Katsina chairman calls a misinterpretation, the electoral body may have overstepped its role at a time when political parties need stability ahead of the 2027 elections. The situation underscores how regulatory decisions, even when well-intentioned, can be perceived as disruptive if they appear to contradict judicial directives. This episode may prompt broader scrutiny of INEC's engagement with party disputes.
