Nigeria’s democracy has always been a fragile experiment, wobbling between the promise of constitutional order and the peril of institutional recklessness.
At the heart of this fragility lies the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), an institution that should embody neutrality but has too often been accused of partisanship, incompetence, or outright illegality.
Under Mahmood Yakubu, INEC became synonymous with questionable decisions and controversial elections.
Now, with Joash Amupitan stepping into the role, one would expect a fresh start. Instead, what we are witnessing is a descent from frying pan to fire.
The recent ADC crisis and INEC’s intervention, despite a clear Supreme Court ruling that political party affairs are not justiciable, is a glaring example of how the Commission continues to undermine democracy.
The Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling
On March 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered a judgment in Senator Samuel Anyanwu v. Sunday Udey-Okoye & PDP.
The apex court reinstated Senator Anyanwu as the authentic National Secretary of the PDP, overturning earlier rulings of the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal.
The principle was unambiguous: internal party affairs, including leadership disputes, are not justiciable in court.
Justice Jamilu Tukur, delivering the lead judgment, stressed that courts lack jurisdiction to interfere in matters purely internal to political parties.
Leadership disputes must be resolved through party constitutions, congresses, conventions, or arbitration panels—not judicial intervention.
This ruling was not just a technical clarification; it was a constitutional safeguard.
It reinforced party autonomy, curtailed judicial overreach, and set a binding precedent for both political actors and institutions like INEC.
INEC’s Misstep in the ADC Crisis
Yet, despite this clear judicial guidance, INEC chose to meddle in the internal crisis of the African Democratic Congress (ADC). The dispute involved two factions: Senator David Mark’s group and Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe’s group.
The Court of Appeal had dismissed David Mark’s appeal, ordered all parties to maintain the status quo, and directed accelerated hearing of the main case at the Federal High Court. Crucially, the court emphasized that no actions should be taken that could prejudice the final judgment.
INEC’s response? A press statement announcing:
- Removal of ADC leadership names from its portal.
- Suspension of recognition of both factions.
- Refusal to accept communications from either side.
- Withdrawal from monitoring ADC meetings, congresses, or conventions.
In effect, INEC froze the ADC as an operational political entity.
Why INEC’s Action is Illegal and Dangerous
INEC’s intervention flagrantly contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling.
By deleting leadership names and suspending recognition, the Commission inserted itself into an internal party dispute.
This goes beyond its constitutional mandate, which is limited to monitoring compliance with electoral laws.
The Court of Appeal’s directive was clear: maintain the status quo.
INEC’s decision to suspend recognition and delete records prejudices the matter, undermining neutrality and violating judicial authority.
This is not neutrality—it is overreach.
It is INEC arrogating to itself powers it does not possess, effectively acting as judge, jury, and executioner in a matter that the Supreme Court has already declared non-justiciable.
From Mahmood Yakubu to Joash Amupitan
Under Mahmood Yakubu, INEC was accused of incompetence, bias, and failure to conduct credible elections.
Nigerians hoped that his exit would usher in a new era of professionalism and respect for the rule of law.
Joash Amupitan’s appointment was greeted with cautious optimism.
But optimism has quickly turned to disillusionment. Instead of correcting Yakubu’s errors, Amupitan appears determined to deepen them.
His INEC has chosen to ignore the Supreme Court’s binding precedent, dabbling in internal party disputes and undermining democratic institutions.
This is why the metaphor “from frying pan to fire” is apt.
Nigerians have escaped the incompetence of Yakubu only to be engulfed by the recklessness of Amupitan.
Strategic Implications
For ADC
INEC’s freeze has effectively crippled the party, preventing it from functioning as a political entity.
This undermines the rights of its members and supporters, disenfranchising them ahead of the 2027 elections.
For INEC
The Commission risks delegitimizing itself.
By contradicting Supreme Court precedent, it erodes public trust and exposes itself to accusations of bias and illegality.
For Democracy
INEC’s action sets a dangerous precedent. If left unchecked, it means the Commission can suspend or freeze any party under the guise of neutrality.
This is a direct assault on multiparty democracy and constitutional order.
The Broader Pattern of Institutional Recklessness
INEC’s ADC intervention is not an isolated incident. It fits into a broader pattern of Nigerian institutions disregarding constitutional boundaries.
The judiciary has often been accused of entertaining frivolous political cases.
The legislature has been criticized for rubber-stamping executive excesses. Now, INEC has joined the ranks of institutions undermining democracy.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Anyanwu v. PDP was meant to draw a line in the sand. Party affairs are not justiciable.
Yet INEC has chosen to cross that line, dragging Nigeria deeper into constitutional chaos.
Conclusion: A Call to Action
Nigeria cannot afford an electoral commission that disregards the Supreme Court. INEC must realign its actions with constitutional boundaries.
Joash Amupitan must understand that neutrality does not mean freezing parties or deleting leadership records—it means respecting judicial authority and allowing parties to resolve their internal disputes.
The Supreme Court has spoken. Party affairs are not justiciable.
INEC’s role is limited to monitoring compliance with electoral laws. Anything beyond that is illegality.
From Mahmood Yakubu to Joash Amupitan, Nigerians have moved from frying pan to fire.
Unless urgent corrective action is taken, the flames of institutional recklessness will consume the fragile fabric of our democracy.
