The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has withdrawn recognition from the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), including the faction led by David Mark.
Crucially, INEC did not replace them with another faction. Instead, it stopped dealing with both factions.
It removed their names from its official portal, and suspended recognition of any ADC leadership pending court resolution.
Why? because of a Court of Appeal judgment (March 12, 2026) ordering parties to maintain the status quo, and avoid actions that could prejudice the ongoing case at the Federal High Court.
In simple terms: INEC is saying *“we don’t know who the real ADC leadership is, so, go and settle it in court first.”*
What is really going on inside ADC?
This is fundamentally an internal party crisis, not (yet) an external attack.
There are two rival camps:
The David Mark-led leadership and a rival faction (linked to Nafiu/Rafiu Bala) challenging that leadership in court.
Both sides claim legitimacy, both have gone to court, and both are trying to get INEC recognition.
This is classic Nigerian party fragmentation: Legal battles + factional congresses + competing chairmen.
So… is INEC acting politically or legally?
The legal interpretation (strong argument), INEC’s action aligns with a common institutional logic: A court says: “maintain status quo” INEC responds: “we freeze everything”.
This is actually typical bureaucratic self-protection: Avoid contempt of court, avoid being accused of bias, and let judiciary decide.
So, from this lens: INEC is being cautious, not necessarily political.
But, “Who is afraid of ADC?” This is where politics enters.
– ADC is becoming strategically important.
Recent developments suggest: ADC is positioning itself as a coalition platform for opposition forces ahead of 2027. Big political figures (including defectors and coalition builders) are reportedly engaging with it.
That makes ADC more valuable than its past electoral performance suggests.
– Internal crisis weakens opposition more than any external attack.
Let’s be blunt: The biggest threat to ADC right now is ADC itself. Courts are involved because party actors went to court.
No ruling party needs to “destroy” a party that is: Already factionalised, already litigating and already divided.
– Is the ruling APC “afraid”?
The All Progressives Congress (APC) has federal power, majority of governors, and Institutional influence. So, fear in the literal sense? Not immediately.
But concern? possibly yes, in a strategic sense. Because, a united opposition coalition (even from smaller parties like ADC) can be dangerous.
Nigerian politics is often about alliances, not party size.
So the real threat is not ADC alone, but, ADC as a vehicle for a broader anti-APC coalition.
Is this move a sign of political suppression?
There are two competing interpretations:
Interpretation A: Institutional neutrality.
INEC is obeying a court order, It froze both factions equally, It avoided choosing sides. This supports the “rule of law” argument.
Interpretation B: Political timing & effect. Even if legally justified, the effect is, ADC becomes temporarily paralysed. It cannot hold recognised congresses, organise leadership formally and function effectively as a coalition hub. That indirectly benefits the ruling party, whether intentional or not.
My balanced opinion.
This situation is less about fear, more about opportunity and dysfunction. INEC’s action is legally defensible. But politically, it weakens an emerging opposition platform.
The deeper issue is ADC’s inability to manage its own internal power struggle. If ADC were united, no court case, no INEC withdrawal and no vacuum.
This is not primarily APC vs ADC, It is ADC vs itself (in court). However, in Nigerian politics, internal crises rarely happen in isolation. Power blocs, alliances, and external influences may still be quietly at play.
Amb. Anderson Osiebe, Executive Director, HallowMace Foundation Africa, Public Policy Expert and an Administrator writes from Abuja – Nigeria.
God Bless Nigeria!
