Human rights lawyer, Femi Falana, has defended the decision of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) not to file any process in the ongoing appeal involving the African Democratic Congress (ADC) at the Supreme Court, describing the move as consistent with legal and constitutional provisions.
Falana stated that INEC’s refusal to either support or oppose the ADC’s appeal—already heard and awaiting judgment—reflects the commission’s obligation to remain neutral in intra-party disputes. According to him, electoral bodies are required by law to avoid taking sides in conflicts within political parties.
He cited the landmark Supreme Court case of Attorney-General of the Federation v Atiku Abubakar, where the apex court criticised both the Nigeria Police Force and INEC for actions perceived as partisan.
In that judgment, former Justice Pius Aderemi emphasised the constitutional duty of institutions like the police and INEC to maintain strict impartiality. He warned that any conduct suggesting bias could erode public confidence and undermine their credibility as neutral arbiters in political matters.
The court had faulted the involvement of the Nigeria Police and INEC in supporting the controversial removal of then Vice President Atiku Abubakar by former President Olusegun Obasanjo, describing their actions as inappropriate and damaging to public trust.
Falana noted that the ruling remains a guiding precedent, stressing that INEC must not only act as an impartial umpire but must also be seen to be fair in the eyes of the public. He added that neutrality should remain the commission’s “watchword” in all political disputes, particularly those internal to parties.
He concluded that INEC’s current stance in the ADC case demonstrates adherence to this principle and should be upheld as a model for institutional conduct in Nigeria’s democratic process.
Article ADC Supreme Court Case: INEC’s neutral stance aligns with law — Falana Live On NgGossips.
