NEWS
2027: INEC Hands Atiku’s Presidential Fate To Courts, Says It Will Obey Final Verdict
2027: INEC Hands Atiku’s Presidential Fate To Courts, Says It Will Obey Final Verdict
INEC Chairman, Prof Joash Amupitan, says the courts will determine whether former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar can contest the 2027 presidential election amid the leadership crisis in the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
Amupitan insists the commission is constitutionally obligated to obey court orders, particularly decisions of the Supreme Court, regardless of their political implications.
The INEC chairman discloses that more than 300 cases are pending against the electoral commission as preparations for the 2027 general election gather pace.
He advocates the conclusion of pre-election disputes at least six months or one year before elections, warning that prolonged litigation could disrupt electoral planning and logistics.
November 12, () – The Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Joash Amupitan, has said the fate of former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s presidential ambition ahead of the 2027 general election rests with the courts, declaring that the commission will comply with the final judicial decision on the dispute surrounding the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
Amupitan said INEC would be constitutionally obligated to implement any valid court order determining the matter, particularly a pronouncement of the Supreme Court, irrespective of the political consequences.
INEC Chairman Prof Joash Amupitan
The INEC chairman stated this on Thursday while speaking at Chatham House in London, where he was asked whether Atiku would be eligible to contest the 2027 presidential election if he failed to overturn the judgment affecting the leadership of the ADC.
Every second brings Nigerians closer to exercising their democratic right and shaping the future of our nation.
Exercise your democratic right responsibly, peacefully and lawfully.
“If he eventually fails, well, I’m obligated under Section 285 of the Constitution of Nigeria to obey every court order, especially if it is from the Supreme Court”, Amupitan said.
The question follows a Federal High Court judgement nullifying the leadership of the ADC faction led by former Senate President, David Mark, in a development that has thrown the party’s leadership structure into uncertainty and raised questions about the political platform on which Atiku intends to pursue his 2027 presidential ambition.
Channel
The ADC has indicated that it will challenge the judgment at the Court of Appeal, leaving the dispute subject to further judicial determination.
Atiku, who contested the 2023 presidential election on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), has aligned with opposition figures seeking to challenge President Bola Tinubu and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) in the 2027 election.
His political realignment with the ADC has placed the party at the centre of opposition efforts ahead of the next presidential contest, making the outcome of the leadership dispute significant to the political calculations surrounding his anticipated candidacy.
Amupitan, however, expressed concern over the increasing number of lawsuits involving INEC, warning that prolonged pre-election litigation could undermine the commission’s preparations for the 2027 general election.
He disclosed that more than 300 cases were pending against the electoral body, describing the volume of litigation as a major challenge, particularly when viewed against the tight timelines for electoral preparations.
“Some of those issues we have with court cases, over 300 cases hanging on the neck of INEC, and elections is just about 66 days away”, he stated.
Explaining the commission’s position on the ADC leadership dispute, Amupitan said INEC had earlier favoured an accelerated hearing to ensure that the matter was resolved within three weeks.
“When it happened in April, the position of the commission was that the matter should be resolved within three weeks”, he added.
He explained that the commission had acted on the basis of a court directive to suspend further action and await the outcome of the judicial process, but the matter subsequently proceeded to the appellate stage.
The INEC chairman said unresolved pre-election disputes could create serious operational difficulties for the commission, particularly when judgements are delivered close to election dates and require changes to arrangements already in progress.
He disclosed that INEC had commenced the procurement of sensitive election materials, warning that prolonged legal disputes could complicate the commission’s planning and logistical arrangements.
Amupitan consequently called for reforms to the handling of pre-election cases, proposing that such disputes should be concluded at least six months or one year before a general election.
“I had advocated in several fora that we pre-election matters should abate at least a year before the election, or let’s say six months, so that we can fix our logistics”, he said.
He also lamented that INEC often becomes the target of public criticism when it implements court decisions arising from political disputes, even though the commission is legally bound to comply with judicial pronouncements.
“The danger is that whenever there is such a decision, and it’s you to now implement, you become the problem. The problem now is transferred unto you”, he noted.
The INEC chairman maintained that the commission could not substitute its judgment for that of the courts, insisting that its responsibility was to implement valid judicial decisions in accordance with the Constitution and the law.
What Federal High Court Ruled In ADC Leadership Crisis
The Federal high court in Abuja Nigeria Photographer David ExodusBloomberg via Getty Images
The November 5 judgement delivered by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja nullified the emergence of the David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the ADC, including the emergence of former Osun State Governor, Rauf Aregbesola, as National Secretary.
The suit was instituted by Nafiu Bala Gombe, a former Deputy National Chairman of the party, who challenged the process through which Mark and other political figures assumed control of the ADC following the resignation of the former National Chairman, Ralph Nwosu, and other party executives in July 2025.
Bala argued that the vacancies created by the resignations were not filled in accordance with the ADC constitution and the Electoral Act, insisting that the Mark-led leadership lacked the legal authority to take over the party’s administration.
In his judgement, Justice Lifu upheld the plaintiff’s claims and directed INEC not to recognise the party’s 99th National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting held on July 27, 2025, as well as decisions and subsequent actions arising from it.
The court also nullified the emergence of Mark, Aregbesola and other members of the National Working Committee, declaring that they had no right to continue presenting themselves as national officers of the party.
It further set aside actions taken by the disputed leadership, including the processes that produced candidates for the 2027 general election, thereby throwing the validity of Atiku’s presidential nomination and other ADC candidacies into legal uncertainty.
The court recognised Bala as the only legitimate member of the party’s National Executive Committee with a subsisting mandate, in line with the reliefs granted in the suit.
The judgement followed an earlier intervention by the Supreme Court, which on April 30 directed the Federal High Court to proceed with and conclude the substantive case after setting aside an interlocutory order of the Court of Appeal concerning the maintenance of the status quo.
The apex court’s earlier decision did not determine the substantive question of who should lead the ADC but returned the dispute to the trial court for determination.
The ADC has rejected the November 5 judgement and indicated that it will appeal the decision. A lawyer representing the party, Kalu Kalu, has also maintained that the judgment did not expressly cancel Atiku’s presidential nomination, insisting that the court’s orders should not be interpreted beyond what was specifically decided.
The appeal is expected to provide further judicial clarification on the party’s leadership, the validity of decisions taken under the Mark-led executive and the electoral consequences for candidates produced by the disputed leadership.
DO YOU WANT TO WHISTLEBLOW, REPORT FRAUD, THEFT OR INJUSTICE OR INTIMIDATION? SEND US YOUR STORY/REPORT TO NEWSDESK@MEDIATODAY.NG
