The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has explained why it is yet to take a position on the leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress (ADC), insisting that it must first obtain and examine the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the court judgment that nullified the party’s leadership.
The commission said it would not take any administrative decision capable of affecting the ADC until its legal department had studied the official judgment and provided the necessary legal advice.
INEC National Commissioner and Chairman of its Information and Voter Education Committee, Mohammed Haruna, disclosed this on Wednesday during a webinar organised by the PUNCH Media Foundation.
Haruna explained that the electoral body was already making efforts to obtain the certified judgment but could not dictate how quickly the court registry should release the document.
According to him, INEC must follow due process and carefully examine the court’s pronouncements before determining the appropriate action to take.
Gists9ja reports that the Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Peter Lifu, on November 5 nullified the emergence of the Senator David Mark-led leadership of the ADC and invalidated decisions taken under the caretaker committee.
The ruling followed a legal challenge instituted by Nafiu Bala Gombe, the party’s former National Deputy Chairman (North-East), who questioned the legality of the process through which the Mark-led leadership assumed control of the party.
However, the ADC rejected the judgment and proceeded to challenge the decision at the appellate court.
The party also filed an application for a stay of execution, asking INEC not to implement any action that could affect its leadership structure or political activities while the appeal remains pending.
Addressing the commission’s position, Haruna said INEC had initiated the process of obtaining the certified true copy of the judgment, noting that the electoral body could not force the court to release it outside established procedures.
He explained that the commission’s legal department routinely approaches court registries to obtain official copies of judgments whenever cases involving political parties and their leadership emerge.
“We can’t rush the courts, but we do our own part. We have a whole legal department. As soon as judgments like this come, what they do, of course, is to go to the courts, to go to the court registry, to see if they can obtain it. But they have their own processes,” Haruna stated.
The INEC commissioner further disclosed that obtaining a certified true copy of a court judgment could ordinarily take approximately one week, depending on the court’s administrative processes.
He said that once the document becomes available, the commission’s litigation department would carefully examine its contents and advise the relevant committee on the legal implications.
Haruna explained that the committee, which is chaired by a national commissioner, would subsequently present its recommendations to the commission for consideration and a final decision.
“So, as soon as we get it, we run a committee system. The department, which is in charge of litigation will look into it, then they will advise. There is a committee which is chaired by a national commissioner. They, in turn, will advise the Commission itself, and then the Commission will take a decision on exactly what to do,” he said.
Reiterating that INEC would not act on assumptions or incomplete court records, Haruna maintained that the commission needed the official judgment before taking any position on the ADC leadership dispute.
He concluded that the electoral body currently had no basis to make a decision on the matter until the certified document was received.
“So, for now, until we receive that certified true copy, there’s really nothing that we can do about it,” the INEC commissioner added.
INEC’s position means that the commission’s next move on the ADC leadership dispute will depend on the release and legal examination of the court judgment, as the party continues its challenge against the ruling at the appellate court.
