By Adam Abdulkadir, Esq
In electoral governance, credibility is not proclaimed, it is demonstrated through disciplined compliance with the law. The recent decision of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to withdraw recognition of the David Mark-led National Working Committee of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) falls short of that standard. It is, with respect, an interpretation in bad taste and a misrepresentation of a clear judicial directive.
The operative anchor here is the preservatory order of the Court of Appeal directing parties to maintain status quo ante bellum and refrain from any act capable of foisting a fait accompli on the trial court. The jurisprudential meaning of that phrase is neither novel nor elastic. It requires a reversion to, and preservation of the last uncontested state of affairs prior to the dispute that triggered the litigation. It is a stabilisation device, not a licence for administrative creativity.
INEC’s resolution, however, introduces a problematic twist. By pegging the “status quo” to a pre-litigation date and proceeding to remove the names of the Mark-led NWC from its portal on the basis that their upload post-dated the filing of the suit, the Commission effectively re-engineers the factual matrix. That move does not merely preserve the subject matter; it alters it. In doing so, INEC risks the very outcome the appellate court warned against: creating a new reality that may prejudice the proceedings before the trial court.
Two structural defects are evident:
The Court of Appeal’s order binds the parties to maintain the status quo and avoid steps that could render the trial nugatory. It does not confer on INEC a roving mandate to determine which faction better reflects that status quo. Once the Commission moves from compliance to selection, deciding whose names stay or go, it crosses from execution into adjudication. That is not its constitutional lane.
On one hand, the Commission resolves to refrain from acts capable of foisting a fait accompli. On the other, it takes a decisive administrative step in the form of withdrawal of recognition that has immediate and substantive consequences for party control, correspondence, and organisational legitimacy. You cannot freeze the field and simultaneously redraw the lines.
The practical implications are not trivial. Recognition by INEC is the gateway to lawful party activity within the electoral ecosystem—meetings, conventions, submissions, and ultimately candidate nomination. To withdraw recognition in the middle of a live dispute is to tilt the internal balance of power, however unintentionally. That is precisely the mischief preservatory orders are designed to prevent.
There is also a governance optics problem. Pre-election periods demand heightened neutrality. Regulatory actors must be seen to be dispassionate custodians, not inadvertent participants. By “putting a wrong foot first,” INEC exposes itself to avoidable allegations of bias and invites collateral litigation that could derail timelines and complicate compliance down the line.
The safer pathway was straightforward: strict, literal compliance with the appellate order, maintaining the operational status quo as it existed in fact, or, where ambiguity was perceived, a prompt recourse to the court for clarification. Anything short of that invites interpretive risk and institutional embarrassment.
Ultimately, this is not about the fortunes of one faction within the ADC. It is about the discipline of a regulator in the face of a clear court order. When compliance becomes reinterpretation, and reinterpretation shades into alteration, the rule of law is not strengthened: it is strained.
INEC still has an opportunity to recalibrate. But as it stands, this is a false start in a race where neutrality, precision, and restraint are the only winning metrics.
Mr Abdulkadir, Esq is a legal consultant based in Gombe and can be reached via abuuraghad@gmail.com
