Okoli Akirika is a constitutional lawyer. In this interview with OKEY MADUFORO, he speaks on the crisis in the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and the alleged plot to stop opposition political parties ahead of 2027 general elections, among other issues
Just recently the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) announced that it has withdrawn correspondents with David Mark’s ADC. What does that portend to the fate of the party?
Let me state as a matter of fact that it was directed at the ADC as a party but it has a deeper and wider dimension and its implications and directions to the democracy of the country as a whole. What INEC has done is an unprecedented display of travesty against due process and legality and let me start with INEC action in a clearer perspective.
INEC purported to have responded to the matters from contending parties in the ADC and for the first time in the history of Nigeria’s politics, the electoral body had to respond in writing to the correspondence from contending factions of the party.
This is because it has never happened before but be that as it may, the electoral body did well by responding. But looking at the contest of what INEC did, INEC purported to have situated the order issued by the Court of Appeal that the parties shall maintain the status quo but when you look at the facts of the case, you will notice that all these took place in 2025 and ADC as a political party formerly wrote INEC in July availing INEC of the names of its national officers.
They also proceeded to hold NEC meetings at the risk of sounding presumptuous because some issues may appear subjudice in view of what Rafiu Bala is contending in court but there are facts that are not contentious and there are issues that are out there in the public domain and those ones are the ones that we are talking about.
If he wants to uphold the relevant status quo, it was the status quo preceding the filing of the suit and not the status quo created by the suit
David Mark led executive of the ADC were functioning to the knowledge and consent of INEC and they now wrote INEC a letter in July and INEC responded on the first day of September and between the time they wrote and the time that they responded, on the September 2, Rafiu now went to court and brought an interlocutory application that contained some prayers which includes an order to restrain David Mark and his executive from functioning as the national leadership of the ADC and trial judge in all fairness and in his wisdom decided that there was no urgency and ruled that the other party should be put on notice which I think they did.
For reasons best known to David Mark and his executive, they opted to go on appeal against that wonderful decision by the trail court. The appellate court on hearing the matter directed that that the appeal was incompetent.
Though I don’t want to sound contemptuous, the court proceeded after declining jurisdiction it now made some gratuitous order which I am quite convinced that none of the parties; that is David Mark and Rafiu Bala applied by saying that the status quo must be maintained.
The Court of Appeal shouldn’t have done that because the major question is what is the effect of that order of the Court of Appeal? If INEC is purporting to place that order, what INEC should have done is to find out the requisite and relevant and the applicable justifiable status quo as at 11 .59pm of September 1st 2025 because that suit was filed on September 2nd.
So the state of affairs before then is that David Mark was and still is the National Chairman of the ADC. So if INEC in fact and reality and in law and in good conscience wanted to respect the status quo, because the status quo as of 11 .59pm of September 1st 2025 and not the status quo created by the suit and filed on the September 2nd. That is the status quo being canvased by one of the parties so there is no way in law that you can constitute the requisite status quo.
The status quo that INEC should preserve is the one preceding the filing of the case and that was where I became worried because INEC Chairman not only being a Professor of law and I think a Senior Advocate of Nigeria should have known better that if you want to talk about status quo or wants to apply the status quo, if he wants to uphold the relevant status quo, it was the status quo preceding the filing of the suit and not the status quo created by the suit so in all good intensions the INEC Chairman was wrong in law and in fact.
Don’t you think that it all boils down to stopping ADC from fielding a candidate in this coming election?
Peter Obi had said it before that the federal government doesn’t want him to be at the ballot and it is no longer a secret and it is no longer an insinuation and no longer subject to summation because it is now clear and tangible.
Everybody knows it and the blind can see it, the deaf can hear it and it is in the public domain so what I think is that in this situation and in due deference to the leadership of the ADC, all that they want to do is good by trying to challenge what INEC did but for me it borders on extreme full headiness. They have used INEC to say what he wanted to say or do by using the Chairman to execute it.
The Chairman was on Arise TV to justify his actions but for me we have to trade on the side of caution and circumspection and carefulness and for me, what ADC should do while canvassing it’s submission, they should at the same time be looking at a safety valve and they still have time to join another party and comply with the procedure and what I suggest with due respect to the national leadership of the party is that I’m pursuing that angle let us have an alternative because in law and in life nothing stops them from having what we call Plan B and it is within the ambit of the law. So, let us look for something that would enable us to contest in the election.
Today the PDP has crisis and we know where it is coming from and that crisis was sustained in the Labour Party though when Peter Obi left, they now said that they are recognizing Nenadi Usman as National Chairman.
If Peter Obi and his people say they now want to go back to Labour Party the crisis in that party would be reinvigorated or reignited. I believe that there must be a party that is not incumbent party that is free from the influence of the powers that be pending the time INEC would reverse its decision.
In full scrutiny of that INEC press statement, it goes to mean that INEC in a very presumptuous manner has assumed the role of the judiciary because you saw where the Chairman said that what they did depends on the outcome of the substantive case. So the implication is that INEC has even foreclosed the trial court from making any interlocutory order.
The court said let the status quo be maintained pending the determination of the pending suit but INEC went and interpreted it out of contest. So INEC has become not only INEC but the judiciary.
Don’t you think that the same monster that has been following Peter Obi would also follow him to any political party that he chooses?
According to late Rotimi Williams, the law may be an ass but there is a limit to the acidity of the law. What it means that there is a limit to the actions of these people who may feel that they are in charge and can do anything.
The matter now pending before the court is an originating summons and the status of Rafiu Bala as a former officer of the ADC, should it be determined by the originating summons?
If he says that he is a national officer of the party which he is saying, what the court is going to interpret is the constitution of the ADC as to what happens when the National Chairman or executive resigns.
This is where the originating summons comes in and that would be determined by the ADC constitution. But my worry is this; I don’t know why being a political between September 2025 and March this year cannot be decided by the court because ordinarily two to three or four months ought to be sufficient to adjudicate on a better that is mere documentary interpretation.
But for one reason or the other, I do not know the details of the case but what happened is that being the case, I want to advise the party not to be full hardy in their case because no matter the case or the issue for you to appreciate it, the Rafiu matter if it has merit you have to go through the full gamut of the trial and time is not on the side of ADC. What ADC should do is by doing that it needs a safety valve and that is why I said that there is need for it to look for an alternative platform.
I want to use this opportunity to appeal to Nigerians not to allow their enthusiasm to be dampened. What they should do is to redoubt their efforts and strengthen their faith and participation in the Electoral process by either sticking with ADC or joining another platform and this not the time to fold our hands and be helpless. We must look for an alternative to make sure that the opposition had a verifiable platform otherwise if they keep quiet or back out they may lose out because time is not on their side. Let us have a plan B while INEC is being checkmated.
They should make sure that the leadership of the party that they are joining does not have issues because when this thing started, it was put on notice that Rafiu being a former national officer has an cunning ability to generate trouble and controversy. You heard what Okey Nwosu the founder of the party said that he was approached to create issues in the ADC he said no! So they had to use a black leg to do that.
