Nigerians will have a very tough job protecting their mandate during the 2027 general elections. There is a significant number of stumbling blocks set up to create a predetermined outcome for the elections. Lots of vigilance is required to ensure that the coming polls are free, fair and credible.
Yesterday, the Federal High Court in Abuja sacked the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) under former Senate President David Mark and voided the party’s presidential ticket held by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar. Judge Peter Lifu said the “Mark-led Caretaker Committee, which conducted the party’s presidential primary that produced Atiku Abubakar as its flag bearer,” is illegal. He dismissed the entire national officers of the party, including National Secretary Rauf Aregbesola, alongside all the candidates the party presented to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the 2027 elections. This means the ADC, the major challenger to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), is barred from fielding candidates in the upcoming general elections.
This action has been on the cards for over one year since the former ADC Deputy National Chairman, North-East, Nafiu Bala Gombe, emerged as the instrument to dismantle the leading opposition party on behalf of the regime. Indeed, the strategy of the ruling APC has always been to block the main opposition parties from contesting so that no one can prevent the deeply unpopular APC from winning the election, which would be played without a level-playing ground.
|
|
Alhaji Gombe had sued the ADC, INEC, Messrs Mark, Aregbesola and a former national chairman of the party, Ralph Nwosu. He argued that following the resignation of the national chairman of ADC, he was constitutionally entitled to take over the party’s leadership. He consequently asked the court to invalidate all actions taken by the Mr Mark-led leadership. He also urged the court to bar Mr Mark, Mr Aregbesola, who is a former governor of Osun State, and other members of their caretaker committee, from parading themselves as valid leaders of the party. Yesterday, Judge Lifu upheld Mr Gombe’s claims and granted his prayers, directing INEC not to recognise the decisions taken at the party’s 99th National Executive Committee meeting of 27 July 2025 and subsequent actions, including nomination of candidates for the 2027 general elections.
In his response to yesterday’s judgement, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, condemned Thursday’s court judgment purporting to remove Senator David Mark’s leadership of the party, describing it as a calculated attempt to weaken the ADC and frustrate his candidacy. In a statement issued by Phrank Shaibu, director of Strategic Communication of the ADC Presidential Campaign Council, Atiku said the timing of the judgment was telling. It came barely a day after a mammoth crowd turned out in Sokoto to welcome him and attend the launch of the ADC campaign.
|
|
|
|---|
“The people of Sokoto came out in their thousands because they are hungry for change and believe in our promise to make life affordable again. What we witnessed in Sokoto is only the beginning. The people of Kebbi will have their say, and so will Nigerians across the country as our campaign moves forward.”
The context we find ourselves in at this time is extremely disturbing. President Tinubu has almost total control of all the branches of government: the executive, legislative and judicial. He also has vast financial resources under his control. He is beginning to think he can do anything he wants and get away with it. He is forgetting that Nigerian citizens have consistently demonstrated a capacity to contest power when it turns toxic.
As the ADC has argued, the judgment also raises serious legal concerns. Justice Musa Liman of the same Federal High Court had already dismissed the challenge to the David Mark-led leadership in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025. The court upheld the defendants’ objections on jurisdiction, standing, the failure to exhaust internal party remedies, and resolved the substantive issues in their favour. Why, after that judgment, was another case filed to reopen the same dispute? This is a calculated attempt to circumvent a subsisting judgment.
The bigger question is how the highly consequential 2027 general elections can be considered a democratic election when the key opposition party is prevented from presenting its candidates. The key problem is the abuse of the powers of incumbency in preventing all serious opposition to President Tinubu. Over the past few weeks, there have been numerous reports about the denial of entry into states for campaign purposes. in addition to direct physical attacks on opposition candidates and denial of access to campaign venues. Opposition parties have also been denied access to the mass media, billboards and even private hotel accommodation. How can we have peaceful and credible elections with such systematic constraints and legal impediments placed before opposition parties?
Stay Ahead with Premium Times
Follow us on Google News and never miss breaking stories, investigations, and in-depth reporting.
Add as a preferred source on Google
The context we find ourselves in at this time is extremely disturbing. President Tinubu has almost total control of all the branches of government: the executive, legislative and judicial. He also has vast financial resources under his control. He is beginning to think he can do anything he wants and get away with it. He is forgetting that Nigerian citizens have consistently demonstrated a capacity to contest power when it turns toxic.
Finally, there are widespread concerns that the Electoral Act has created loopholes that could be used to upset the electoral applecart. On the electronic transmission of election results: Section 60(3) provides for the electronic transmission of polling unit results to the IReV, while it retains the signed physical Form EC8A as the primary basis for collation where electronic transmission fails. The ambiguity surrounding what constitutes transmission failure and who verifies it could create opportunities for disputes and manipulation.
In addition, in the aftermath of the 2019 general elections, INEC created the Form EC 40G PU to prevent a situation in which results could be smuggled into the election process from PUs where elections have not taken place at all. The EC 40G was originally limited only to collation centres from the ward level upwards, where Presiding Officers provide reports to Collation Officers where elections have not taken place.
There is also the problem of the creation of constituencies. Under the legal framework of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Sections 71, 72, 73, and 112 grant the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) the authority to divide the federation and states into electoral constituencies. While altering boundaries or creating brand new legislative seats typically requires rigorous constitutional amendments under Sections 8 and 9, INEC recently took a major action by executing judicial mandates to bring back suppressed constituencies.
With the EC 40G PU, Presiding Officers were, from the 2023 general elections, required to fill in all PUs where elections have not taken place and upload it directly onto the IReV to prevent unscrupulous politicians from manufacturing results and going to court to claim these, contrary to the Commission’s own evidence that elections have taken place in those PUs. Feelers from the Commission are that the EC40 G PU, while still in the new Guidelines for the 2027 General Election, may have been silently jettisoned.
If this is correct, it is a massive setback for the integrity of 2027, for it means fake results can be smuggled into the system, especially in light of the provision of Section 63 (1) and (2) of 2026 Electoral Act 2026 that confers the right on election officials to determine the authenticity of ballot papers and other election materials.
There is also the problem of the creation of constituencies. Under the legal framework of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Sections 71, 72, 73, and 112 grant the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) the authority to divide the federation and states into electoral constituencies. While altering boundaries or creating brand new legislative seats typically requires rigorous constitutional amendments under Sections 8 and 9, INEC recently took a major action by executing judicial mandates to bring back suppressed constituencies.
Driven by court judgments rather than mandatory legislative action, INEC officially restored over 20 previously suppressed State House of Assembly constituencies. This compliance exercise directly impacted Benue, Delta, Kogi and Jigawa states ahead of the upcoming general election, where such constituencies were ‘restored’ by court order. The Commission’s unilateral decision to restore these constituencies without the consent of the two chambers of the National Assembly raises serious constitutional questions about the legality of such an action. Deeper still, the ‘restoration’ of these constituencies also requires the creation of new polling units, which the Commission has allegedly done by creating over 450 new PUs without involving stakeholders in the process. These actions have serious implications for the conduct of the 2027 general elections.
Nigerians will have a very tough job protecting their mandate during the 2027 general elections. There is a significant number of stumbling blocks set up to create a predetermined outcome for the elections. Lots of vigilance is required to ensure that the coming polls are free, fair and credible.
A professor of Political Science and development consultant/expert, Jibrin Ibrahim is a Senior Fellow of the Centre for Democracy and Development, and Chair of the Editorial Board of PREMIUM TIMES.
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
More News
