aligned with Senator David Mark-led African Democratic Congress (ADC), insisting that the electoral body merely complied with subsisting court orders and did not take sides in the ongoing leadership dispute rocking the party.
Speaking during an interview on Arise TV, Amupitan dismissed claims by the David Mark faction of the ADC that INEC acted with bias, stressing that the commission carefully interpreted the Court of Appeal’s directive ordering parties to maintain “status quo ante bellum” pending the determination of the substantive suit before the Federal High Court.
According to him, INEC’s actions were guided strictly by the law and the need to avoid creating a situation that could prejudice the pending court proceedings or impose a fait accompli on the trial court.
“If they (ADC) are saying we have taken sides, that is not true, because if you look at the status quo ante bellum, we tried to interrogate it, and it means the status before the hostility started, the status before the war,” Amupitan stated.
Providing detailed background into the dispute, the INEC Chairman explained that the legal battle began when parties filed applications challenging the recognition of party leadership, prompting the court to direct all parties to show cause why certain reliefs should not be granted.
He noted that while the matter was pending, Senator Mark proceeded to file an interlocutory appeal on September 18, 2025, which lasted until March 12, 2026.
“Now, the parties were expected to file counter with affidavit and show cause why the application should be refused. So they did. But at the same time, Senator David Mark decided to go on appeal. So when he filed the appeal sometime on the 18th of September, 2025, the appeal lasted until the 12th of March this year, which is about five months,” Amupitan said.
He explained that the Court of Appeal eventually dismissed the appeal and issued preservatory orders directing that the substantive matter be heard expeditiously.
“The Court of Appeal not only dismissed the appeal, it was an interlocutory appeal. They dismissed the appeal and at the same time made some preservatory orders. And the preservatory orders were very clear,” he said.
According to him, the appellate court directed the trial judge to grant accelerated hearing due to the fact that INEC had already released its timetable for upcoming elections.
“To the extent that, number one, in view of the fact that INEC had already released its timetable for the election, that the trial judge was directed an order to proceed with the case expeditiously. That is, the court granted accelerated hearing. And this is an originating summons, which can only be decided within some few days, some few weeks,” Amupitan said.
Amupitan disclosed that the controversy largely stemmed from the Court of Appeal’s directive that parties must maintain status quo ante bellum and refrain from taking any action capable of undermining the authority of the trial court.
“Then number two, which is now causing the controversy, is the order, specific order, that parties should maintain status quo ante bellum. I did not just stop at that. The parties should not do anything that would force a fait accompli on the trial court. And finally, that parties should not do anything that will render the proceedings before the court negatory,” he said.
He revealed that the commission initially learned of the judgement through media reports and social media, but refrained from acting until official communication was received.
“When I first heard of it, because it was delivered on the 12th, I heard of it on the news, social media. And before I knew it, people were calling me that INEC has ordered the David Mark name group to be removed. I said, I cannot act on social media news information,” he said.
According to the INEC Chairman, the commission subsequently received two letters on March 16, 2026; one from solicitors representing Senator Mark’s group urging INEC to maintain the status quo, and another from Summit Chambers, counsel to Nafiu Bala, insisting that Bala should be recognised as national leader of the ADC in line with court directives.
Amupitan stated that upon receiving conflicting legal interpretations from both parties, he convened a meeting with INEC’s legal department and Electoral Party Monitoring (EPM) unit to determine the commission’s appropriate course of action.
He disclosed that the EPM unit had sought clarification on whether INEC should monitor the National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting convened by the Mark faction.
“The EPM specifically requested that since there was going to be a meeting of the political parties, what do we do in this circumstance? And secondly, that they had received notice of the meeting of NEC of ADC by David Mark’s group,” he said.
According to him, the commission initially decided to invite the parties and monitor developments pending clarity from the courts.
“Looking on the face of the judgment, I felt okay, what you should do in this circumstance? We are just receiving this case. Invite them, go ahead, invite them, monitor, whatever,” he said.
The INEC Chairman further disclosed that on March 27, 2026, the commission received another letter from Summit Chambers, drawing attention to an earlier motion ex parte filed on December 15, 2025 seeking to restrain the David Mark faction from parading itself as the legitimate leadership of ADC.
He said the motion sought an order restraining both the David Mark group and INEC from recognising or monitoring any meetings or congresses organised by the faction pending determination of the suit.
“In that ex parte application, they were asking for another order restraining David Mark and his group from parading themselves as the leaders of the party. And secondly, restraining INEC from monitoring any of the meetings or recognizing whatever that comes out of the meeting,” he said.
According to Amupitan, the lawyers for Nafiu Bala argued that INEC’s decision to invite the David Mark faction for political party meetings amounted to violation of the Court of Appeal ruling.
Amupitan said concerns heightened when the David Mark faction notified INEC of plans to proceed with primaries and congresses scheduled for April 9, 2026 despite pending litigation.
He stressed that proceeding with congresses while a motion seeking to restrain such activities remained pending before the Federal High Court could undermine judicial authority.
“When I look at the motion that was already pending before the Federal High Court, that INEC should not monitor any meeting, congress or convention, if you go back to the order of the Court of Appeal, none of the party should do anything that will force a situation of failure to comply on the court,” he said.
According to him, the Court of Appeal had expressly directed parties not to take steps capable of affecting the subject matter of the pending suit.
Clarifying the legal interpretation of the controversial phrase, Amupitan said the commission carefully examined judicial authorities and Supreme Court precedents defining status quo ante bellum as the state of affairs before hostilities began.
“At that stage, we felt it would be necessary to look at the complaint of all the parties. The letter written by the counsel and then the letter written by them calling for us rescheduling their congress,” he said.
“What is status quo ante bellum? So if they are saying that we’ve taken sides, that is not true. Because if you look at status quo ante bellum, we tried to interrogate it. And it naturally means that the status before the hostility started.”
He emphasised that the legal concept differs from ordinary status quo, as it requires reverting to the position that existed before the dispute escalated.
“There are several authorities that say the status before the war, and the status when things were peaceful, the peaceful conduct until the controversy came,” he said. “So when you talk of status quo ante bellum, it means I have to go back. And that was the specific order of the Court of Appeal.”
Amupitan maintained that INEC’s decision was neither political nor partisan but rooted in the need to preserve the integrity of judicial proceedings.
He reiterated that the commission remains bound by court orders and will continue to act in accordance with the law pending final determination of the substantive suit.
Discussion about this post