UNDERSTANDING THE LAW, THE LETTER, AND THE LOOMING JUDGMENT.
A wave of political commentary has recently argued that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has “quietly recognized” the Turaki-led National Working Committee of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). It is an attractive proposition for those seeking quick victories in a complex crisis, but it is built on illusion rather than law. A proper reading of the facts(especially INEC’s statutory mandate and the party’s own prior communication) exposes the weakness of this narrative.
Central to the misunderstanding is the Osun governorship primary. Commentators have loudly proclaimed that because INEC monitored the December 2 primary, it must therefore have endorsed the faction that issued the notice. But this argument deliberately ignores a crucial document: the official PDP notification to INEC dated Monday, August 25, 2025, with reference PDP/DOM/GF.2/VOL.1M/25-138, which a reminder was sent in on Monday October 27th 2025, with reference number PDP/DOM/GF.2/VOL.1M/25-178 in which the Party validly informed the Commission of its scheduled activities for the Osun governorship nomination.
That letter issued months before the internal rupture, clearly laid out the sequence of events pursuant to Section 82(1) of the Electoral Act, 2022:
• *Ward congresses: Monday, November 24, 2025.*
• *LGA congresses: Saturday, November 29, 2025.*
• *Gubernatorial primary: Tuesday, December 2, 2025.*It further emphasized that the mode of primary would be indirect and undertook to keep the Commission updated. Critically, the activities outlined in this correspondence follow the legal logic of primaries: Activities 1 and 2 must occur before Activity 3. INEC’s duty (and only lawful option) is to act on this valid, pre-existing notification unless a court orders otherwise.
This is precisely why INEC’s monitoring of the Osun primary cannot, by any stretch, be interpreted as recognition of a faction. The Commission is not acting on Turaki’s letter. It is acting on the August 25 notification, properly issued before the controversy escalated. It would be institutional malpractice for INEC to discard a valid statutory notice in favour of a disputed one whose legitimacy is the very subject of ongoing litigation.
This is also why INEC appears “silent”: the Commission cannot indulge illegality or act on a document “built on nothing.” Where competing factions issue conflicting notices, INEC defaults to the earliest lawful communication unless and until the courts decide otherwise. Anything more would drag the Commission into partisan quicksand.
This brings us to the most decisive missing piece in the public conversation: the pending Court of Appeal judgment scheduled for December 8. That judgment will determine the validity of the Ibadan convention, the authority of the signatories issuing notices, and ultimately which faction holds legal command of the party structure. INEC cannot preempt that ruling. It cannot guess. It cannot gamble.
The Commission therefore acts with restraint (not recognition; with constitutional caution) not factional preference.
The claim of “silent anointing” collapses under this reality. INEC monitored Osun because the law required it, and because a valid, uncontroverted notice had been issued long before the crisis. Everything else is political theatre.
The public must understand that this dispute will not be resolved by inference, spin or strategic storytelling. Only the law(and the Court of Appeal on December 8) will settle it. Until then, the illusion of quiet endorsement remains just that: an illusion.
— PDP 10-Point Vanguard
