Emerging reports and a post by Odinkalu on X on Wednesday night say the INEC statement removing Senator David Mark and former Osun State governor Rauf Aregbesola as recognized leaders of the ADC was issued under duress.
OBSERVERS TIMES report that the electoral commission announced plans to remove the names of Mr. Mark (named as National Chairman) and Mr. Aregbesola (named as National Secretary) from its official portal, citing a subsisting court dispute over the party’s leadership. INEC’s notice—signed by National Commissioner and Chairman of the Information and Voter Education Committee Mohammed Kudu Haruna—also said the commission would “suspend recognition of any faction or leadership of the ADC pending the final determination of the case before the Federal High Court in Abuja.”
INEC said the action followed “preservatory orders” issued by the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/145/2026, involving Senator David Mark and Nafiu Bala Gombe.
Odinkalu, a former chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, told his followers he had “impeccable authority” that Amupitan’s appointment to lead INEC was conditioned on a pre‑signed resignation letter held by powerful interests. According to Odinkalu, the threat to make that letter public compelled Amupitan to adopt the commission’s latest interpretation of the court ruling rather than seeking formal clarification from the judiciary.
“I have it on the most impeccable authority that there is a pre‑signed resignation letter by Chairman Amupitan. It was a pre‑condition for his appointment,” Odinkalu said. “The threat of releasing it did the magic.”
Odinkalu questioned how a professor of law and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) could justify INEC interpreting a Court of Appeal decision rather than applying to the court for an authoritative interpretation if any ambiguity existed. “It should be evident to a professor of law and SAN that it is not the business of INEC to interpret the decision of the Court of Appeal,” he wrote.
He further alleged that a series of high‑level meetings involving senior INEC officials, the Presidency, the Court of Appeal and the Federal High Court took place within the 60 hours preceding the statement, a claim he says comes from verifiable sources.
The allegations come at a politically sensitive time as Nigeria prepares for the #NigeriaDecides2027 electoral cycle. If substantiated, the claims would raise serious questions about the independence of the electoral commission, the integrity of its leadership appointments, and the propriety of its actions when court disputes involving political parties are ongoing.
Observers note that when a judicial ruling is unclear, standard practice is for the agency concerned to seek clarification from the issuing court to avoid misapplication of the law. Legal analysts say an INEC action based on an internal interpretation of an appellate judgment could itself be subject to legal challenge.
As of publication, INEC has not publicly addressed Odinkalu’s allegation that a pre‑signed resignation letter exists or that Amupitan was coerced. The commission’s Wednesday statement attributed the delisting to appellate “preservatory orders.” Calls and emails to INEC headquarters for further comment were not immediately returned.
Attempts to reach Senator David Mark, Rauf Aregbesola, and Nafiu Bala Gombe for reaction were also unsuccessful at the time of filing.
What’s next:
Legal experts say the most transparent path would be for INEC to seek an authoritative interpretation from the Court of Appeal or the Federal High Court concerning its obligations under the cited orders. Meanwhile, Odinkalu’s charges are likely to intensify calls from civil society for an independent probe into the circumstances surrounding Amupitan’s appointment and the circumstances that led to INEC’s statement on the ADC leadership dispute.
