INEC's Induced Neutrality In PDP Affairs
The neutrality of INEC has come under sharp scrutiny following a controversial meeting convened by its Chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan, between what are widely regarded as the PDP's legitimate and illegitimate groups.
By Umar Sani
The neutrality of INEC has come under sharp scrutiny following a controversial meeting convened by its Chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan, between what are widely regarded as the PDP's legitimate and illegitimate groups. The hastily assembled meeting appeared more about appeasing a group that has persistently sought validation despite lacking lawful standing.
Available indications suggest that the so-called protesting group had complained to influential quarters that INEC was recognising the lawful PDP leadership. What followed was an induced invitation an impromptu meeting designed to reassure them through a public posture of “neutrality.” The objective seemed clear, to give the faction enough comfort to continue parading itself as a parallel authority.
Significantly, the meeting itself was protested by the Turaki-led group, which questioned its legality and propriety. It took personal pleas from Joash to persuade them to remain in the room, a request to which they reluctantly acceded. Yet, while that meeting was ongoing, the Supreme Court was delivering a judgment in an appeal filed by INEC a judgment that could not have been more instructive or timely.
In that decision, the apex court categorically restated that INEC has no business intervening in, arbitrating over, or recognising factions in the internal leadership disputes of political parties. The court emphasised that such disputes are non-justiciable internal affairs, beyond the reach of both the courts and the electoral umpire. INEC, the court held, is limited strictly to administrative recognition based on formal correspondence and routine ancillary matters such as notices of conventions, congresses, lists of officers duly communicated, and similar procedural documents. Anything beyond this amounts to unlawful interference.
This position is not new. The Supreme Court has, over the years, consistently admonished both courts and institutions of state to steer clear of internal party leadership tussles, warning that no court can entertain disputes over who leads a political party. Such matters, the court has maintained, are political questions reserved exclusively for the party’s internal mechanisms.
Against this settled legal background, INEC’s decision to summon rival PDP groups into the same room raises troubling questions. It sends mixed signals and inadvertently lends credibility to a group whose existence has no legal footing. That single meeting, more than any public statement, speaks volumes about perceived neutrality.
Meanwhile, the role of security agencies has further deepened the crisis. Without any valid court order, the police sealed both Wadata Plaza and Legacy House the two recognised PDP secretariats apparently in deference to an order from above. Since then, security has been denied or withdrawn at party functions, reinforcing the impression of a coordinated onslaught aimed at keeping the PDP in a perpetual state of disorder.
This pattern feeds into a broader and more cynical narrative. VP Kashim Shettima’s oft-quoted remark that only a fool would contest against Tinubu in 2027 is getting clearer. Perhaps he believes that no viable opposition platform would survive the time, which resonates ominously. Across parties, crises appear engineered, sustained, and exploited through internal proxies and endless legal distractions.
It is within this context that questions have also arisen about the INEC Chairman’s unresolved public concerns over land allocation which cast further shadows over claims of impartiality. Whether real or perceived, such land issues demand transparency, not silence.
The lesson here is simple. Institutions earn credibility not by proclamations but by conduct. For INEC, strict fidelity to the law especially clear Supreme Court guidance is not optional. A stitch in time saves nine. The sooner INEC retraces its steps confining itself to its lawful mandate, the better for democratic stability and public trust.
What's Your Reaction?
