How INEC weathered storms during party crises since 1999

Since Nigeria’s return to democratic rule in 1999, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has played a pivotal yet frequently contested role in resolving internal crises within political parties.

While the commission often relies on court judgement to determine which faction of a party to recognise, its decisions have repeatedly triggered accusations of bias, selective interpretation of rulings, and alleged political interference.

BusinessDay reports that INEC is legally bound to act on judicial pronouncements, yet many of those rulings are themselves conflicting, subject to appeal, or open to interpretation.

The result has been a pattern in which every major party crisis draws the commission into the centre of political disputes, with one faction typically endorsing its actions and the other condemning them.

ADC
The latest example is the leadership crisis in the African Democratic Congress (ADC), where INEC declined to recognise either of the rival factions led by former Senate President David Mark and Nafiu Bala Gombe.

The commission cited a recent Appeal Court ruling as the basis for its position. However, the decision immediately sparked outrage.

The Mark-led camp accused INEC of deliberately misinterpreting the ruling and alleged that the commission was working in tandem with the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) to weaken opposition parties ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Protesters from the faction stormed INEC headquarters in Abuja, demanding the resignation of the commission’s chairman, whom they accused of partisanship. The faction has also vowed to proceed with its congresses and national convention, setting the stage for further confrontation.

This controversy reflects a broader historical pattern. Across Nigeria’s Fourth Republic, INEC’s interventions in party disputes, often guided by court decisions, have consistently generated political tension.

PDP
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) crisis of 2016–2017, involving Ali Modu Sheriff and Ahmed Makarfi, remains one of the most prominent examples of how judicial ambiguity can complicate INEC’s role. Initially, the commission recognised Sheriff’s leadership based on lower court rulings.

However, the situation changed dramatically when the Supreme Court eventually affirmed Makarfi as the legitimate leader of the party. The shifting legal landscape exposed INEC to criticism from both sides, with the Sheriff faction accusing the commission and the judiciary of inconsistency.

One of the most recent flashpoints also involved the PDP, where a leadership tussle between rival factions has drawn in both the judiciary and the electoral body.

Following a Federal High Court judgement, INEC recognised a faction aligned with Federal Capital Territory Minister, Nyesom Wike. However, a rival group led by Kabiru Turaki rejected the decision, arguing that the commission had no constitutional authority to determine party leadership.

The faction accused INEC of taking sides in what it described as an internal affair, further deepening divisions within the party.

Read also: INEC Chairman denies partisan bias, commission pledges crackdown on cybercrime

LP
After a Federal High Court ruling, INEC had recognised a caretaker committee led by Senator Nenadi Usman of the Labour Party.

Yet, supporters of the suspended national chairman, Julius Abure, insisted that the commission was acting in defiance of valid court orders.

They accused INEC of legitimising what they termed an “impostor leadership,” highlighting the recurring problem of multiple, conflicting judicial pronouncements.

AD
Analysts say the roots of these disputes can be traced back to earlier crises, such as the prolonged leadership battle within the Alliance for Democracy (AD) between 2003 and 2006.

The conflict centred on two rival factions led by Adebisi Akande and Mojisoluwa Akinfenwa. At the time, INEC recognised the Akinfenwa-led leadership, largely on the basis of a court-backed national convention that produced him as national chairman.

The Akande faction strongly rejected the decision, accusing the commission of relying on a flawed process and taking sides in a political contest.

The episode established an early precedent for the controversies that would come to define INEC’s role in party disputes.

AA
In more recent years, the Action Alliance (AA) crisis further illustrated the complexities involved. A Federal High Court had reportedly validated the convention of the faction led by Rufai Omoaje and ordered INEC to upload the executives produced by that convention.

When the commission did not immediately comply, critics accused it of contempt of court and demanded sanctions against its officials. The delay raised questions about whether INEC selectively implements judicial decisions, particularly in politically sensitive cases.

SDP
Other parties have faced similar challenges. In September 2025, INEC affirmed the leadership of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) under Shehu Gabam, communicating its position in a formal correspondence to the Federal Capital Territory Police Command.

The decision was intended to clarify the party’s leadership amid a prolonged dispute. However, a rival faction led by Sadiq Abubakar Gombe, rejected the recognition, accusing the commission of bias and alleging that it had ignored contrary legal positions.

NNPP
The New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) crisis offers yet another example of the legal complexities surrounding party leadership disputes.

In late November 2025, a High Court in Abuja issued an order restraining INEC from recognising any faction of the party other than the one led by Dr. Agbo Gilbert Major.

Despite the clarity of the court order, a rival faction led by Ajuju Ahmed, raised concerns, questioning both the judgement and INEC’s anticipated compliance.

BusinessDay reports that party factions approach the courts to legitimise their claims; courts issue rulings that are sometimes inconsistent or subject to appeal; and INEC, acting on those rulings, makes decisions that inevitably provoke backlash from the losing side.

In many instances, the commission has been accused of selective compliance, acting swiftly on some judgements while delaying or ignoring others.

Critics argue that the problem lies partly in the legal framework governing political parties. While parties are expected to manage their internal affairs, they frequently rely on the judiciary to resolve disputes, effectively outsourcing internal democracy to the courts.

This judicialisation of party politics places INEC in a difficult position, forcing it to interpret and implement rulings that may lack clarity or finality.

Defenders of the commission, however, maintain that INEC has little choice but to follow court orders, even when they are controversial.

They argue that any perceived inconsistency is a reflection of the judiciary’s own contradictions rather than institutional bias within the commission.

Analysts say the ADC crisis, like those before it, highlights the urgent need for clearer legal guidelines, faster judicial resolution of party disputes, and stronger internal democratic mechanisms within political parties. Until these issues are addressed, pundits say INEC will likely remain at the centre of political controversies.