The courts, INEC, and political parties: Guardians of democracy or its saboteurs?

By Olarinre Salako

Published in The Nigerian Tribune: Systems and Society. April 6, 2026

Democracies fail not only when institutions are captured, but also when institutions, acting within their mandates, produce outcomes that weaken the system they are meant to protect.

At the center of democracy are three guardians: political parties, electoral umpires, and the courts.

When these institutions act with clarity, coordination, and discipline, democracy strengthens. When they act with ambiguity, delay, or procedural weakness—inadvertently or deliberately—the result erodes trust across the system.

On April 1, 2026, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) dropped a bombshell. It announced the withdrawal of recognition for the Senator David Mark-led National Working Committee (NWC) of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) while refusing to recognize Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe as acting National Chairman, pending the substantive suit at the Federal High Court. INEC based its decision on the status quo ante bellum ordered by the Court of Appeal on March 12, 2026.

This unfolding leadership crisis is not just a party dispute. It is a textbook case of how weak institutional guardrails, unclarified judicial orders, and overly cautious regulation can erode the foundations of multi-party democracy.

The Background

In law, as in system engineering, the sequence of events is instructive:

1. May 17, 2025: A resignation letter was reportedly issued by the ADC Deputy National Chairman, Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe.
2. July 29, 2025: ADC NEC meeting (observed by INEC) dissolved Nwosu-led leadership (with Hon Nafiu Bala in attendance) and installed a Mark-led caretaker structure.
3. August 12, 2025: The alleged resignation was transmitted to INEC.
4. September 2, 2025: Nafiu filed suit at the Federal High Court, seeking recognition as acting National Chairman and restraining INEC from recognizing the Mark-led leadership.
5. September 4, 2025: Justice Emeka Nwite declined interim injunctions but directed respondents to show cause.
6. September 9, 2025: INEC updated its portal recognizing the Mark-led leadership.
7. December 18, 2025: Mark-led ADC filed an appeal challenging jurisdiction.
8. March 12, 2026: Court of Appeal ordered status quo ante bellum.
9. April 1, 2026: INEC withdrew recognition of all leadership.

The legal term status quo ante bellum is defined as: the state of affairs (status quo) existing before the war (ante bellum).

Before Nafiu’s litigation, ADC had an INEC-observed leadership structure from the July 29 NEC meeting.

This raises a critical question: what, precisely, was “the state existing before the war” the court intended to preserve?

The Court

The courts are central to preserving democratic order. The doctrine of status quo ante bellum prevents actions that may prejudice a case—but it requires precision. What legal reality is being preserved?

What exact moment in time defines the “status quo”? The period before the July 29 NEC transition, before Nafiu’s September 2 filing, before the September 9 INEC recognition, or the December 18 Mark-led appeal filing? What was Nafiu Bala’s legally recognized position at each of these critical points?

A reasonable interpretation would be the preservation of the leadership structure existing before any judicial intervention—particularly one already operational, observed by INEC, and with Nafiu Bala in attendance.

In a time-sensitive environment, unclear preservative orders risk competing interpretations and instability.

INEC—led by a professor of law—adopted a maximally cautious approach framed as neutrality—but neutrality without clarity can paralyze institutions. Institutional prudence requires both caution and procedural discipline.

From a systems perspective, ambiguity at the point of instruction should trigger clarification—not execution.

The law operates within the physical time and space. The relevant institutional baseline must therefore anchor to the NEC meeting of July 29, 2025—an event that cannot be retrospectively redefined without explicit judicial clarification.

Acting on an undefined baseline introduces instability, particularly in politically sensitive environments. INEC should have transferred the burden of clarification back to the source of authority—the Court of Appeal—to protect its neutrality.

By acting without returning to the court, it invited suspicion of partiality—a leadership vacuum in a major opposition party.

Already, Nigerians’ trust in INEC is fragile, and Professor Joash Amupitan, SAN, should know that perception is reality.

Unless INEC deliberately embraces restraint in intraparty affairs, such perception is dangerous to democratic stability.

The consequences are immediate. ADC’s planned congresses and national convention are now at risk, threatening its participation in upcoming governorship elections in Ekiti (June) and Osun (August).

At the same time, INEC has scheduled voter revalidation to begin on April 13, 2026. This creates a troubling disconnect. Citizens—many already under economic strain—face verification amid uncertainty, while the very institutions meant to facilitate democratic choice appear locked in interpretive gridlock, immobilizing a major opposition platform.

The Political Parties and Politicians

Political parties are foundational in democracy. They must uphold strong internal governance because their discipline shapes broader institutional outcomes.

The sequence of events reveals four administrative gaps—creating openings for contestation:
(a) the July 29 NEC transition and the September 9 update on the INEC portal;
(b) Nafiu’s reported resignation on May 17 and the August 12 transmission to INEC;
(c) four-month delay between the purported resignation and the September 2 filing of litigation;
(d) the seven-day interval between September 2 filing and September 9 INEC update.

The facts also raise consistency questions. Nwosu on April 2, 2026 indicated that Nafiu had participated in multiple meetings over several months leading to the July 29 2025 transition, was actively involved in building the coalition that adopted the party platform, and he resigned May 17, 2025.

However, Nafiu argued the transition violated the ADC constitution and that he never validly resigned. Meanwhile, as of July 3 & 11, 2025, Nafiu in his social media postings announced his participation in high-level meetings leading to the coalition’s adoption of ADC, and acknowledged the Mark-leadership structure that emerged from that process.

This raises credibility and commitment questions: can a process actively participated in and publicly affirmed later be wholly disowned?

If a resignation was indeed issued on May 17, why did the same individual continue to publicly act and identify as Deputy National Chairman on July 3 and 11, including participation in meetings that eventually shaped the new structure of party’s leadership on July 29?

This disconnect between formal documentation and public conduct reflects a broader weakness in Nigerian political culture—where role clarity and institutional records are not tightly aligned.

An opposition party, led by a retired army general and seeking to take power from a politically sagacious president—who openly expressed “pleasure in the disarray” of the opposition—should have taken greater care in its administrative processes.

You don’t fight a political veteran soldier, who stood strong against the persecution of a dark-goggled general and the onslaught of an Owu-general, using conventional tactics.

However, an Ìyálọ́jà (a market women leader) who sets the market on fire may be the first to be consumed in the conflagration. The title of Ìyálọ́jà is only meaningful in a competitive market.

The First Republic is instructive!

Nigerians Deserve Choices in 2027

The present situation offers lessons.

First, courts must recognize that in politically sensitive disputes, clarity is as important as neutrality. Preservative orders must define their baseline.

Second, the electoral commission must balance caution with functional continuity. Where ambiguity exists, judicial clarification should take precedence over creating institutional vacuum.

Third, political parties must strengthen internal administration—it is foundational to building broader state capacity for good governance.

In the immediate term, ADC should continue time-bound processes consistent with constitutional freedom of association and formalise with INEC after clarification.

INEC should rescind its decision, seek clarification from the court on the point to which “ante bellum” refers, and then act.

ADC can also challenge INEC’s decision in the same court of Appeal.

Stakeholders should also cooperate with the High Court to accelerate the substantive case.

These recommendations are offered in the interest of Nigeria’s multi-party system.

Nigerians deserve a meaningful choice in 2027—not undermined by institutional ambiguity.

Did Nafiu Bala Gombe resign? All eyes are on the courts.