The African Democratic Congress (ADC) wishes to state, clearly and unequivocally, that we remain focused on our mission to rescue Nigeria from the failure of the APC-led government and to prevent the dangerous slide toward a one-party state.
We have taken note of recent suggestions that the ADC will not produce candidates in the 2027 elections. We find such claims to be entirely unfounded, mischievous, and designed to create confusion where none exists. They have no basis in law, in fact, or in the reality of our preparations as a political party.
The ADC will present candidates in the 2027 general elections. Not just candidates, but credible, competent, and nationally acceptable candidates who are capable of leading this country out of its current crisis.
We remain a law-abiding political party, fully compliant with the Constitution and the Electoral Act. There is no legal impediment to our participation in the 2027 elections, and any suggestion to the contrary is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public and dampen the growing momentum around our party.
The ADC stands today as the primary opposition platform in Nigeria, and we take that responsibility seriously. We are not distracted by noise. We are focused on the real work, organising across the country, mobilising Nigerians who are tired of insecurity, rising costs of living, and limited opportunities, and building the structures required not just to contest, but to win.
We urge our members, supporters, and all well-meaning Nigerians to disregard these baseless assertions. The task before us is too important to be derailed by speculation.
I welcome the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria on the matter concerning the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
This ruling stands as a strong affirmation of the supremacy of the rule of law and the enduring strength of our democratic institutions. At a time when there are growing concerns about the integrity of political processes, today’s decision sends a clear and reassuring message that the judiciary remains a steadfast guardian of justice, fairness, and constitutional order.
Importantly, this judgment has now put to rest all questions around the leadership of the party, affirming the legitimacy of the leadership under distinguished Senator David Mark and H.E Rauf Aregbesola. This clarity is critical for stability, unity, and the continued growth of the party within Nigeria’s democratic space.
Democracy thrives not merely on elections, but on the credibility of the institutions that interpret and uphold the law. The Supreme Court, through this judgment, has once again demonstrated its commitment to impartiality and its role as the final arbiter in disputes that shape our political landscape.
I commend the Court for rising above all pressures and delivering a verdict that reinforces public confidence in our legal system. This is not just a victory for any political party or interest group; it is a victory for Nigeria, for democracy, and for every citizen who believes in the sanctity of due process.
As we move forward, I urge all stakeholders to respect the judgment and continue to engage within the bounds of the law. Our collective responsibility is to strengthen democratic values, deepen institutional trust, and ensure that Nigeria’s political space remains governed by justice, equity, and the rule of law. -AWT
NO, masturbation won't make you infertile. People have been using that misinformation for years. OUR body simply doesn't work like that.
However, many young men need to be very careful when e start to enter compulsion. It can be very addictive, it can mess with your head or affect your real-life relationships.
But medically speaking? Nothing do your fertility.
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has carefully reviewed the recent interview granted by the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Joash Amupitan, and finds it necessary to respond, in order to correct several legal and factual misrepresentations. While the Commission seeks to present its position as one anchored in law and neutrality, the substance of the Chairman’s own statements reveals a fundamental misapplication of both constitutional principles and judicial directives.
First, the Chairman’s repeated assertion that INEC is merely acting within the confines of a “multi-party constitutional order” is, with respect, a deflection from the central issue. The question before Nigerians is not whether Nigeria remains a multi-party state in theory, but whether the actions of INEC in practice are undermining the ability of opposition parties to freely organize and function. The ADC has not alleged the abolition of multi-party democracy in form; rather, it has raised concerns about actions that, in effect, weaken it. The Chairman’s reliance on the existence of multiple parties as proof of neutrality does not address the specific conduct under scrutiny.
On the issue of the Court of Appeal’s order, the Chairman places heavy reliance on the doctrine of status quo ante bellum, suggesting that it requires a rollback to a particular point in time and a suspension of party activities. This interpretation is both selective and legally flawed. The preservation order, by its nature, is intended to prevent actions that would irreversibly alter the subject matter of litigation, not to paralyze the internal functioning of a political party. The Chairman’s attempt to define the “status quo” by tracing the controversy to internal party developments in July 2025 is an administrative interpretation that INEC is not empowered to make. That determination lies strictly within the jurisdiction of the courts, not the Commission.
Furthermore, the Chairman’s claim that holding congresses or conventions would “render proceedings nugatory” is an overreach. Internal party processes, conducted in line with the party’s constitution and the Electoral Act, do not extinguish or prejudice pending judicial proceedings. On the contrary, democratic continuity within a political party is presumed under the law unless expressly restrained by a competent court. No such explicit order prohibiting congresses or conventions has been cited. What exists are general preservation directives, which cannot be expanded into a blanket prohibition on party governance.
The assertion that INEC is restrained from monitoring congresses due to an injunction equally exposes a critical misunderstanding of its role. INEC’s duty to monitor is statutory and triggered upon proper notification. A party’s decision to proceed with its internal processes does not depend on INEC’s participation. By conflating its monitoring function with the validity of the processes themselves, INEC effectively places itself above the law, assuming a veto power it does not possess.
The Chairman also references conflicting communications from different factions within the ADC as justification for inaction. However, the existence of internal disputes does not suspend a political party’s constitutional rights. Indeed, such disputes are commonplace in democratic systems and are routinely resolved without administrative paralysis. INEC’s role is not to arbitrate these disputes or to freeze party activities pending their resolution, but to maintain neutrality and allow due process to run its course.
1/2