Reported by: Ijeoma G | Edited by: Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
Political tensions in Nigeria have escalated sharply as civil society organisations, opposition leaders, and political analysts have accused the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) of deliberately weakening opposition parties and manipulating institutions to gain an advantage ahead of the 2027 general elections. The claims center on recent internal crises within the African Democratic Congress, alleged institutional bias, and broader concerns about the electoral playing field.
At the core of the controversy is a prolonged leadership dispute that has engulfed the ADC since mid‑2025. The party has been divided between two competing factions — one aligned with former Senate President David Mark and another led by former Vice-Chairman Nafiu Bala Gombe. The dispute arose after the resignation of the party’s national chairman, triggering rival claims to leadership. The disagreement escalated into legal battles as both sides sought court declarations to enforce their preferred executives.
The Court of Appeal in Abuja, in a March 2026 judgment, dismissed an appeal by one faction and ordered that the status quo ante be restored, effectively directing both factions to revert to the situation that existed before the dispute. The ruling left both factions with unresolved authority, creating confusion over which executives INEC should recognize as legitimate leaders of the party.
In response, the Independent National Electoral Commission announced that it would no longer accept correspondence, nominations, or official documents from either faction until the leadership dispute is conclusively resolved in court. INEC explained that the decision was necessary to uphold judicial directives and prevent future lawsuits that could invalidate election results or create leadership confusion after polls.
The derecognition triggered strong reactions across the political spectrum. Leaders of the David Mark–aligned faction rejected the decision, accusing INEC of overreach and claiming that the withdrawal of recognition disenfranchised party members and undermined internal democracy. Some officials even called for the resignation of INEC’s chairman, alleging bias and a loss of neutrality.
Civil society groups such as the National Youth Alliance accused the APC of orchestrating the situation to weaken opposition forces. The group argued that by allowing institutional decisions that paralyzed opposition parties, the APC was positioning itself advantageously for the 2027 elections. Preventing recognized leadership from participating in candidate nominations and electoral processes, they said, constitutes indirect suppression of political competition.
The Movement for Credible Elections, led by political economist Pat Utomi, also alleged that recent judicial and electoral actions suggested a broader strategy to stifle opposition parties and dilute their influence. The organisation raised concerns about perceived alignments between the APC, sections of the judiciary, and INEC, arguing that these could compromise electoral integrity and the prospects of a free and fair election.
Other civic groups warned of nationwide protests and public mobilization if institutions were perceived to act without independence or impartiality. They viewed the institutional derecognition of opposition party structures as setting a dangerous precedent, signaling a trend in which legal technicalities could be used to marginalize political adversaries.
Political analysts noted that INEC’s actions can be legally defended. When a court issues directives affecting party leadership, the commission is obliged to act in conformity with judicial orders to safeguard the legitimacy of candidate lists and election outcomes. Acting otherwise could lead to post-election litigation that might nullify results.
However, critics argued that INEC’s derecognition of both factions, rather than clarifying or managing the transition pending a final court ruling, left a vacuum that internal party politics could not fill. This, they said, inadvertently weakened an opposition party at a critical time, raising questions about consistency and fairness in INEC’s treatment of parties.
The APC dismissed allegations of deliberately weakening the opposition. The party said the ADC’s crisis was self-inflicted due to internal mismanagement. APC leaders insisted the ruling party remained committed to fair competition and denied any collusion with INEC or manipulation of judicial processes.
In the legislature, opposition lawmakers have called for clearer safeguards to ensure political parties are not disadvantaged by institutional actions. They urged a review of political party regulations, arguing for clearer guidelines on how INEC should handle recognition disputes, especially when court orders are issued but substantive cases remain unresolved.
Meanwhile, both ADC factions have filed motions in the Supreme Court seeking clarification on the appellate ruling and injunctions to reinstate their leadership structures. The outcome will determine party autonomy and influence the electoral process.
Civic groups have intensified warnings, suggesting that further institutional bias could spark large-scale public demonstrations. They maintain that weakening opposition parties undermines democratic participation and deepens public distrust in democratic institutions.
As Nigeria approaches the 2027 elections, the controversy surrounding APC and the alleged weakening of opposition parties underscores growing concerns about electoral fairness, party strength, and public confidence in democratic institutions. How INEC, the courts, and political parties navigate these challenges will significantly shape the credibility and inclusiveness of the upcoming elections.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments