ADC Crisis: Are We Missing The Real Issues?

By Seyifunmi Odunuga

 The political uproar over INEC’s decision to delist the David Mark faction of the ADC from its website is, in my view, generating more heat than light.

What seems to have been ignored in much of the commentary is that the presence or absence of a faction on INEC’s website does not, by itself, settle the underlying dispute. There are already multiple court cases around the leadership and control of the party, and at any point those proceedings could make any administrative listing provisional, contested, or irrelevant.

More importantly, the real issues deserving public scrutiny are being pushed aside. There are serious allegations in circulation, including claims of forgery, hijacking of party structures, and the expiration of the mandate of the previous leadership. The forgery allegation, notably, was made by Hon. Bala Gombe. In addition, Mr. Dumebi Kachukwu is before the court challenging the emergence of the David Mark-led ADC NEC. These are not minor side issues. They go to the heart of legitimacy, internal party governance, and the rule of law.

So the more useful question is this: why is the public debate not centered on these glaring inconsistencies and the alleged wrongdoing that has been raised? Why does every conversation seem to begin and end with an attempt to fault INEC, while the deeper institutional and legal questions are treated as though they do not deserve examination?

INEC is the regulator. Its role is not ornamental, and it cannot be expected to act outside the legal and procedural framework within which parties are meant to operate. The courts, on the other hand, exist precisely to resolve disputes of this nature and to preserve fairness in the electoral process. That is how a constitutional democracy is supposed to work.

We should therefore resist the temptation to reduce a complicated legal and political dispute to a simplistic attack on INEC. The more responsible approach is to interrogate the substantive issues, allow the courts to determine the contested questions, and allow INEC to perform its regulatory function within the bounds of the law.

That is where the real conversation should be.