A legal analysis has argued that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is under a binding obligation to remain neutral in the African Democratic Congress (ADC) leadership crisis, following a subsisting court order directing parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum.
Gatekeepers News reports that the dispute, according to the analysis authored by Bodunde Opeyemi, Esq., originated from the ADC national executive committee (NEC) meeting of July 29, 2025, which produced a new leadership led by David Mark after the reported resignation of the Ralph Nwosu-led executive.
However, Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe, who disputed claims that he resigned as vice national chairman, approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking to restrain both the Mark-led executive and INEC from recognising the new leadership.
The suit included a motion ex parte and a motion on notice for an interlocutory injunction.
Rather than granting the ex parte request, Justice Emeka Nwite ordered that all parties be put on notice. The Mark-led faction subsequently filed an appeal challenging that decision, a move the analysis said contributed to the current legal deadlock.
In its March 12, 2026 ruling, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and directed all parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum.
“Parties are hereby directed to maintain the status quo ante bellum and shall refrain from taking any step or doing any act capable of foisting a fait accompli on the court or otherwise rendering nugatory the proceedings before the trial court,” the court ruled.
The analysis emphasised that the order “admits of no ambiguity,” explaining that status quo ante bellum requires a strict return to the situation as it existed before September 2, 2025, when the suit was filed.
It further cited judicial precedents, including A.G. Federation v. Abubakar (2007) and Kotoye v. CBN (1989), to underscore that such orders are meant to preserve existing conditions and prevent parties from taking actions that could prejudice ongoing proceedings.
Against this backdrop, the author argued that INEC has no discretionary power in the matter but is compelled by law to comply fully with the appellate court’s directive.
Accordingly, the commission’s refusal to recognise any faction of the ADC, monitor party activities, or retain names submitted after the institution of the suit was described as the “only lawful course”.
The analysis warned that any contrary action would amount to a violation of a binding court order and an affront to judicial authority.
“The law remains trite: no party can, by unilateral action, overreach the court,” the author stated, adding that until the Federal High Court determines the substantive suit, any leadership arrangement outside the pre-dispute structure remains invalid.
