In an interview with selected journalists, the National Publicity Secretary of the African Democratic Congress, Bolaji Abdullahi, alleges that the Independent National Electoral Commission’s delisting of the party’s National Chairman, David Mark, and National Secretary, Rauf Aregbesola, is part of a wider plan to weaken the opposition and limit electoral choices. He insists that the party would proceed with its plans, emphasising that INEC’s role is supervisory and not to control party leadership. ABDULRAHMAN ZAKARIYAU brings you excerpts
What do you mean by saying INEC does not have the power to remove party leadership, given that it is the regulatory body?
We in the African Democratic Congress challenge INEC’s authority over party leadership matters. Whatever actions INEC is taking now are unconstitutional and inconsistent with established legal precedents. We maintain that political parties operate as voluntary associations whose internal affairs cannot be dictated by external bodies. INEC’s role is supervisory. INEC does not have the power to remove the leadership of a political party. Fundamentally, a political party is a voluntary association, and if you are not a member of our family, you cannot come and remove the head of that family. The role of INEC is supervisory, not administrative, not to control political parties and decide how they run their affairs. What they have done goes completely against established legal principles and the very foundation of democratic practice in Nigeria.
What is your response to the interpretation of the court ruling and the “status quo” issue?
The Court of Appeal ruling at the centre of the dispute, to maintain “status quo ante bellum”, has been misinterpreted by INEC. The ruling referred to maintaining the condition of the party before the conflict initiated by Nafiu Bala Gombe, a period during which the leadership under David Mark was already in place and recognised. The Court of Appeal ruling was very clear when it said maintain status quo ante bellum, which simply means return to the situation before the conflict started. Before Gombe went to court, David Mark was already the duly recognised chairman of the party following the NEC meeting of July 29, which INEC monitored and acknowledged. So, how does maintaining the status quo suddenly translate into removing an existing leadership and leaving the party without direction? That interpretation is not only fraudulent, but it is also dishonest and completely self-serving.
On Nafiu Bala’s position that he did not resign, what is your take?
Bala’s claim is baseless. He was never chairman of the African Democratic Congress. There were several deputy national chairmen. At what point was Nafiu Bala ever the chairman of the ADC? The answer is clearly no. He was one of the deputy national chairmen, one among six, and there was a resolution taken on July 25 that all members of the executive should resign, which he duly did. If he is now claiming that his signature was forged, that is a criminal offence. Has he reported to the police? Is there any official complaint anywhere? There is none, and that tells you everything you need to know about the credibility of that claim.
What is your response to the allegations of forgery and the so-called “linguistic evidence”?
We challenge him to provide evidence of any formal complaint to law enforcement authorities that his signature or any document was forged. Forgery is a criminal offence that requires official reporting and investigation, which Bala has failed to initiate. There is ample evidence showing that he resigned. Beyond that, we also examined his linguistic pattern. He has a peculiar way of writing certain words, and everything aligns with what we have on record, including the resignation letter. Even if, for the sake of argument, his signature was forged, the NEC meeting dissolved the entire executive and brought in a caretaker committee led by David Mark. INEC was present, monitored it, and documented it. So, this argument does not stand on any serious legal or factual ground.
Who are the people giving these warnings?
Some of those making such claims include Leke Abejide, who publicly declared support for President Tinubu ahead of 2027 and was expelled for anti-party activities. Dumebi Kachikwu was also expelled before we came on board. So, how do individuals who are no longer part of the party suddenly become authoritative voices on its internal affairs? These are distractions, and we know exactly who is pushing them and for what purpose.
How do you respond to the claims of political interference in this matter?
There is a broader political conspiracy to weaken opposition parties, with the aim of leaving only one viable candidate ahead of the 2027 elections. What is happening is designed to ensure that by 2027, there will be only one candidate on the ballot. This is not accidental; it is coordinated and dangerous for the future of democracy in Nigeria.
Is the Mark-led ADC following up on this legal battle as it moves to the Court of Appeal?
The African Democratic Congress approached the Court of Appeal even though the matter was still before the Federal High Court, citing Supreme Court rulings limiting jurisdiction over internal party affairs. The reason for going to the Court of Appeal was to establish that the Federal High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this matter. The Supreme Court has already ruled that issues relating to the internal affairs of political parties are not justiciable. The Court of Appeal itself acknowledged this and ordered that the status quo be maintained while the matter is resolved.
So, will the ADC leadership proceed with the congresses, convention, and other activities as planned?
The African Democratic Congress will proceed with its planned national convention, having complied fully with the law and notified INEC within the stipulated timeframe. We have given INEC the required 21 days’ notice, and they acknowledged it. The Electoral Act clearly states that INEC may attend, not that it must attend, especially for internal administrative processes like electing party officers. There is nothing unlawful about proceeding with our convention, and we will not allow illegal directives to derail our activities.
Nigerians deserve democracy, and we understand their expectations. What is your perspective?
Democracy thrives when there is a strong and credible opposition, and that is what we are working towards. We will continue to engage, organise, and ensure that the voices of Nigerians are not silenced. This is bigger than the African Democratic Congress; it is about the future of democratic participation in this country.
How do you think excluding ADC will affect democracy?
The crisis is a defining moment for Nigeria’s democracy. What is at stake is not just the African Democratic Congress, but Nigeria’s democracy itself. We believe in the courts and in judges who understand their duty to the country. We will pursue this matter to its logical conclusion because we know we are on solid legal ground. We are not intimidated and will continue to participate fully in the democratic process regardless of the challenges.
We also criticise the government’s handling of national crises and the suppression of opposition parties. Did you see the killings in Benue? Did you see the killings in Kaduna? People are celebrating Easter, and the President visited Jos, spent only a few minutes, and left. Is that the kind of governance we want to continue? Nigerians have rejected them, and that is why these actions are happening. Why target opposition parties? But it will not succeed. Nigeria is bigger than any individual, no matter how powerful they think they are.
Read the full article here
