The media aide to the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, Paul Ibe has questioned the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC) over its failure to clarify its position on a Federal High Court judgment upholding the David Mark-led ADC leadership.
Naija News reports that the aide was reacting to INEC Chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan’s statement that the electoral body would abide by court decisions concerning Atiku’s participation in the 2027 presidential race.
Speaking via a post on 𝕏, Ibe argued that while obedience to court orders is a legal duty, Amupitan assurance left unanswered questions about a July 2, 2026 judgment delivered by Justice Musa Liman, which upheld the emergence of the David Mark-led ADC leadership.
He questioned if Justice Liman judgement has been set aside, and demanded that INEC identify the specific orders it considers binding.
He said, “INEC Chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan, says the commission will obey the courts on Atiku Abubakar’s @atiku participation in the 2027 presidential election. That is as it should be. Obedience to lawful court orders is a duty, not a concession.
“But that assurance leaves an important question unanswered: what is INEC’s position on the judgment delivered by Justice Musa Liman on 2 July 2026, which upheld the emergence of the David Mark-led ADC leadership?
“Justice Liman and Justice Peter Lifu sit in the same Federal High Court. Neither court is an appellate court over the other. INEC therefore owes Nigerians a clear explanation of how it intends to reconcile the two decisions, not merely a general declaration that it will obey the judiciary.
“Has Justice Liman’s judgment been set aside? Which specific orders does INEC consider binding, and how does it reconcile their effect on the ADC leadership and its candidates?
“These are legitimate questions about consistency, institutional neutrality and the rights of Nigerians to genuine electoral choice.
“We are not asking @inecnigeria to disregard any court order. We are demanding an approach that accounts for both judgments and leaves the resolution of any conflict to the appropriate appellate court.
“A judgment favourable to the opposition @ADCNig cannot become invisible when another judgment goes against it. The same standard must apply, regardless of which political party benefits.
“INEC must demonstrate that its guiding principle is the law, not the political convenience of the outcome.”
