TDNigeria’s electoral governance is once again under intense public scrutiny following the controversy surrounding the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) decision to delist Chief David Mark and Comrade Rauf Aregbesola as National Chairman and National Secretary, respectively, of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
These are not merely interesting times; they are profoundly revealing.
Defending its action, INEC—under the leadership of Professor Joash O. Amupitan, SAN—issued a statement through its Chief Press Secretary, Adedayo Oketola, asserting the Commission’s fidelity to constitutional provisions and judicial authority.
INEC cited Section 157 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) , emphasized the independence of its leadership, and firmly rejected calls for the Chairman’s removal outside constitutionally prescribed processes.
It further maintained that its actions were guided by strict compliance with judicial orders.
On the surface, this defence projects an institution committed to legality, constitutionalism, and respect for judicial authority.
However, a closer examination reveals a troubling contradiction—one that strikes at the very heart of Nigeria’s democratic integrity.
The ADC Case: A Claim of Compliance
INEC’s justification in the ADC matter rests on two principal claims:
- That it acted in obedience to a Court of Appeal judgment.
- That it refrained from monitoring ADC’s congresses and convention to avoid violating subsisting court orders, including preservative orders restraining it from taking steps that could render pending suits nugatory.
Furthermore, the Commission claimed to have invoked Section 287(2) of the Constitution, which mandates all authorities and persons to obey and enforce court judgments.
This argument is legally sound—indeed, commendable. No democratic system can function where court orders are treated with levity.
On this point, INEC is right. But that is precisely where the contradiction begins.
The NRM Case: A Stark Departure from Principle
In sharp contrast, INEC’s conduct regarding the National Rescue Movement (NRM) presents a fundamentally different picture.
On January 16, 2025, the Federal High Court issued a clear and binding order directing INEC to monitor the Emergency National Convention of the NRM scheduled for January 17, 2025, and to recognise the outcome.
The Commission failed to comply.
Subsequently, on March 5, 2025, the same court delivered a final judgment affirming the validity and legality of that convention and, by implication, the leadership that emerged from it.
Yet, more than a year later, INEC has neither complied with the order nor given effect to the judgment.
This is not a matter of legal interpretation. It is a matter of compliance—or, more accurately, non-compliance.
Selective Obedience: The Core Concern
The central question, therefore, is unavoidable:
Why does INEC invoke the authority of court orders in one case (ADC), yet disregard them in another (NRM)?
If Section 287(2) of the Constitution is binding—and it is—then it must apply uniformly, not selectively.
The rule of law is not a menu from which institutions choose favourable provisions. It is an obligation—absolute, binding, and non-negotiable.
Selective compliance creates a dangerous precedent:
- It undermines the credibility of the Commission.
- It erodes public confidence in electoral governance.
- It weakens the authority of the judiciary.
- It introduces arbitrariness into a system that must be governed by certainty and fairness.
On What Authority Did INEC Determine NRM Leadership?
Equally troubling is the unresolved question of how INEC arrived at the name it uploaded on its portal as the National Chairman of the NRM—an action reportedly taken without any identifiable legal backing or subsisting judicial authority.
This development raises fundamental constitutional concerns:
- Under what authority did INEC act?
- Was there any valid court order supporting such action?
- If none exists, does this not amount to administrative overreach?
In a constitutional democracy, an electoral umpire must not only be impartial but must also be seen to operate strictly within the confines of the law.
Any deviation—however subtle—risks eroding public confidence, invites legitimate scrutiny, and casts a shadow over the integrity of the institution.
ADC vs. NRM: A False Equivalence
It is important to state clearly: the ADC situation and the NRM case are not equivalent.
In the ADC matter, INEC claims to have acted to avoid disobedience of court orders.
In the NRM matter, INEC stands accused of doing precisely what it claims to avoid—disobeying clear and subsisting court orders and judgments.
This is not merely inconsistency. It is a contradiction of institutional posture.
The Deeper Question: What Is INEC’s Interest in NRM?
This brings us to the most critical question:
What interest does INEC have in the internal affairs of the NRM that justifies its continued non-compliance with court orders?
In a democratic system, electoral bodies are expected to be neutral arbiters, not actors with vested interests.
Where actions suggest otherwise, the burden falls on the institution to provide clarity—promptly, transparently, and convincingly.
Conclusion: A Test of Institutional Integrity
The present moment is more than a legal dispute. It is a test of institutional integrity.
INEC cannot, on the one hand, proclaim adherence to the rule of law in the ADC matter, and on the other hand, disregard binding judicial pronouncements in the NRM case.
Such duality is unsustainable. The rule of law demands consistency. Justice demands fairness. Democracy demands credibility.
If INEC is to retain public trust, it must demonstrate clearly and unequivocally that its commitment to court orders is not situational, but universal.
Anything less risks reducing the Commission from an impartial umpire to a contested actor in the very system it is meant to regulate.
Final Thought
In the final analysis, the issue is not ADC or NRM.
It is not personalities or political alignments.
It is a simple, enduring question:
Can the rule of law survive where compliance is selective?
Nigeria deserves a clear answer.
