An affidavit deposed in September 2025 by an official of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) asked the Federal High Court in Abuja not to interfere in the internal affairs of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
The affidavit, submitted by INEC assistant executive officer Jacob Ayuba, was filed in response to a suit brought by Nafiu Bala, a factional chairman of the ADC, who sought judicial intervention to restrain members of a rival leadership group from presenting themselves as party officials.
The case stems from a leadership dispute within the ADC following the reported resignation of the party’s national working committee in July 2025 and the emergence of an interim leadership headed by David Mark. This development was contested by Bala, who argued that he should assume leadership based on the party’s constitution.
INEC, as a respondent in the case, stated in its affidavit that it monitored the party’s national executive committee (NEC) meeting held on July 29, 2025, where leadership changes were reportedly made. According to the commission, its officials observed the proceedings and later submitted a report confirming the appointment of new party executives.
The affidavit further noted that INEC updated its records to reflect the leadership changes and maintained that the court should not intervene in what it described as the “domestic affairs” of a political party. It argued that courts should avoid interfering in internal party matters except in specific circumstances, such as disputes over primaries.
INEC also contended that the actions being challenged had already been completed, making the request for an injunction unnecessary.
The dispute escalated to the Court of Appeal, where an appeal challenging the lower court’s handling of the case was dismissed for lack of merit. The appellate court ruled that there was no valid decision from the trial court to justify the appeal.
Following the ruling, INEC later stated that it would refrain from engaging with either faction of the ADC or monitoring their internal activities, citing the appellate court’s judgment.
The ongoing leadership crisis highlights internal divisions within the ADC and raises broader questions about judicial involvement in political party governance.
