INEC Criticized Over Handling of ADC Leadership Faction

LAGOS — Barrister Oluwole Osaze-Uzzi, a former Director of Voter Education and Publicity at the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), has expressed "serious reservations" regarding the commission's recent decision to withdraw recognition from the David Mark-led leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

Appearing on ARISE News, the legal expert argued that the commission may have misinterpreted a subsisting Court of Appeal order related to the party’s internal leadership dispute.

Misinterpretation of Judicial Orders

Osaze-Uzzi contended that the court's intervention was intended to maintain the status quo rather than invalidate the legitimacy of any specific faction. According to him, the judicial directive was a precautionary measure to ensure that no party involved—including INEC—preempts the final decision of the High Court.

“The court did not say that INEC will withdraw recognition from either faction,” Osaze-Uzzi stated. “All it did say is that both INEC and the contesting factions will be careful not to do anything that will usurp the power of the court.”

He advised the ADC to proceed with its scheduled congresses, asserting that as long as the activities do not obstruct the judicial process, they remain legally viable.

Questions of Legal Interpretation

While acknowledging the high caliber of INEC’s leadership—noting that the Chairman and several members of the legal department are Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN)—Osaze-Uzzi remained firm that the commission's current stance is flawed.

He suggested that while the commission likely studied the judgment, their "interpolation" of the order led to an unnecessary administrative hurdle for the political party.

On the Necessity of INEC’s Presence

A key point of contention addressed by the former director was whether INEC’s physical presence is required for a party congress to be deemed valid. Osaze-Uzzi clarified that under the Electoral Act, the commission's attendance is not a prerequisite for legality.

Key Legal Clarifications:

• Notice vs. Attendance: The law mandates that a party must notify INEC at least 21 days prior to a convention.

• Validation: Once the notice is served, the party has fulfilled its statutory obligation. INEC’s failure to attend does not automatically nullify the proceedings or the outcomes of the congress.

• Autonomy: Internal party exercises remain valid regardless of whether commission officials are physically present to observe.

Osaze-Uzzi concluded by reinforcing that the ADC should move forward with its internal democratic processes, maintaining that the "majesty of the court" is not impugned by a party conducting its administrative affairs while litigation is ongoing.