Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Joash Amupitan, has further clarified the commission’s interpretation of the Court of Appeal directive at the center of the leadership dispute within the African Democratic Congress (ADC), involving David Mark.
Speaking during an interview from 13:54 on Arise Television on Friday, April 3, 2026, Amupitan explained that INEC’s actions were guided strictly by judicial instructions, particularly the directive to maintain “status quo ante bellum.”
He stated, “That is, none of the parties should do anything that will force a failure to comply on the trial court, irrespective of the subject matter. And that is part of the relief they are claiming in their original motion summons. And that is also what they are claiming in their motion expertise and the interlocutory motion, emotional notice.”
Amupitan noted that the commission considered planned political activities in light of ongoing legal proceedings. “So given the fact that they are informing me that they are going to hold their congress, I think, on the 9th of April. And the Court of Appeal said, don’t do anything that will affect the subject matter of the pending case in the Federal High Court until it is decided,” he said.
According to him, INEC reviewed communications from all parties before taking any position. “Now, at that stage, we felt it would be necessary to look at the complaint of all the parties. The letter written by the council and then the letter written by them calling for us resettling their congress. So it was at that stage that we decided to meet and look at the facts, the circumstances,” he added.
Addressing allegations that the commission had taken sides, Amupitan rejected the claim and elaborated on the legal meaning of the disputed phrase. “What is status quo ante bellum? So if they are saying that we’ve taken sides, that is not true,” he said.
He continued, “Because if you look at status quo’s ante bellum, we try to interrogate it. And it naturally means that the status before the hostility started. And there are several authorities that says the status before the war. And the status when things were peaceful, the peaceful conduct until the controversy came.”
Amupitan further distinguished between related legal terms. “So if you look at it from that perspective, and there are Supreme Court decisions with that effect. The status quo is even different from status quo ante bellum. So when you talk of status quo and ante bellum, it means I have to go back. And that was the specific order of the Court of Appeal,” he stated. Read_More…