In this Fourth Republic, opposition political parties have always been enmeshed in internal wrangling, which the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) fails to resolve. Unless the commission learns to take a more active part in the regulation of political parties, its independence would continue to be under suspicion, LEO SOBECHI writes.

The recent pronouncement by the Court of Appeal in a case brought before it by Mr. Nafiu Bala Gombe, in case No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, has elevated the Latin expression, status quo ante bellum, into a controversial political tie-breaker.

The history of Nigeria’s electoral system and politics is replete with judicial pronouncements that, instead of resolving disputes, ended up lacerating the minds and confusing not only the litigants but also the citizens.  Before status quo ante bellum gained traction, there were ‘substantial non-compliance,’ ‘locus standi,’ and ‘non-justiciable.’

Right from the onset of Nigeria’s return to the path of multi-party presidential democracy, the electoral umpire, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and the judicial arm of government have been the major deciders of elections. This reality has made voters remain passive actors in the leadership recruitment process.

The dynamism of rigging as a constant feature of Nigeria’s electoral system has been at the root of the search for foolproof strategies that define the incremental reforms. But even during the Second Republic, the obfuscation of judicial pronouncements in disputed elections brought in a new dimension to the entire malaise.

How to ensure that the will of the electorate triumphs as the basis of election of representative continue to define subsequent Electoral Acts, which seem to set the template for not only the balloting exercise, but also the behaviours of politicians and the election management agency.

While the electoral commission concerns itself with the business of management elections, monitoring political parties’ compliance with extant laws, including the commission’s regulations and the constitutions of the parties, the judicial side remains beyond its control despite the ‘independence’ appellation prefixed to its identity.

When it comes to adjudication in electoral matters, the judiciary plays up the cliché that the law is an ass.

When a team of The Guardian reporters went to interview former President Olusegun Obasanjo towards his 83rd birth anniversary, he relived an anecdote of what used to happen in the English Court. He told the story of how some corrupt judges were in the habit of coming to court with two sets of judgments, the positive side in the right trouser pocket, while the negative one resides in the left side. This way, he stated, any party to the case which brings hefty hand out for the judge gets the judgment in the right-side pocket while the trusting party gets the judgment housed in the left-hand side.

The former president maintained that judicial corruption was not easy to deal with from the outside, stressing that unless the institution has a self-cleansing mechanism, the rule of law would continue to bow to the whims of the rich.
Perhaps, it was in the hope that the rule of law should stand upright that gave rise to the maxim, “Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.” According to Lord Hewart, the Lord Chief Justice of England propounded that principle in the 1924 case of R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy.

The purport of the principle is that fairness in law is not enough on its own, rather the process must also appear fair to the public. That is to say, even if a decision is legally correct, if it looks biased or suspicious, people may lose trust in the justice system.

That spectacle is what the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and its chairman, Prof. Joash Ojo Amupitan, are grappling with. Although he is a Professor of Law, in the eyes of many Nigerians, the INEC chairman and his commission’s decision to interpret the order of the Court of Appeal that the status quo ante bellum should be maintained in the case filed by Gombe was not fair.

The question that observers of the ongoing disputations over the leadership status of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) are asking is: Does status quo ante bellum translate to no victor, no vanquished or snuffing life out of the coalition party?

However, as in all things surrounding partisan politics, instead of challenging INEC to activate the Latin maxim, ubi jus, ibi remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy), which seems a fitting running mate for status quo ante bellum, the ADC trooped to the streets, believing that INEC having committed a ‘capital sin,’ should also suffer similar punishment by losing its own head, that is, amputating Amupitan from the commission.

INEC Versus Opposition Parties
In the current Fourth Republic, INEC has always had a running battle with opposition political parties. For instance, in the buildup to the 2003 general election, the Alliance for Democracy (AD) was enmeshed in internal disputes.

Although the then ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was not directly accused of stoking the crisis, the disagreement between Chief Mojisola Akinfenwa and Bisi Akande ran so deep such that the AD became sharply divided into two factions.

As a result, the party not only lost many of its state governors to PDP, but was also unable to organise its national convention.

In the throes of possible death, some AD leaders rebuffed the attempt by Yoruba socio-cultural and socio-political organisation, Afenifere, to broker peace and serve as the ideological conscience of the party, while others believed that giving the party a national clout was the only way to salvage the political future of the core loyalists.

A parallel could be drawn between what AD did to pull itself through those trying moments with what the coalition of opposition ADC and PDP mooted during the solidarity visit of the Governor Seyi Makinde/Kabiru Turaki-led PDP to the ADC leadership last Wednesday.

And, just as the then president Obasanjo was accused of deceiving some AD governors into forming a loose political understanding aimed at guaranteeing his (Obasanjo’s) second term, the President Bola Tinubu-led All Progressives Congress (APC) is alleged to have corralled PDP governors into APC to strengthen the President’s second term plans.

As the only survivor of the 2003 election debacle for AD, President Tinubu, who was the Governor of Lagos State at that time, assumed political leadership of the Akande-camp and navigated the party towards a merger with other tendencies to become the Action Congress (AC).

The first attempt to broker a South West and greater North political alliance saw the AC further transmuting to Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), which produced Alhaji Atiku Abubakar as its first presidential candidate. Upon Atiku’s decision to slide back to PDP, the leaders of ACN experimented with the idea of South West and North West political alliance.

Although the talks could not be consummated in time for the 2011 elections, the next four years saw the ACN leaders pulling off the historic merger that birthed the APC in 2013. With that successful establishment of a mega party, the Akande faction of AD was ready to challenge and dethrone the octopus PDP in the 2015 poll.

Another opposition political party with a chequered history of intra-party wrangling is the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA). By the time APGA was registered by the founding national chairman, Chief Chekwas Okorie, many high-heeled politicians from the South East were clustered in the PDP.

However, after the 2003 governorship election, the party encountered problems trying to defect its mandates in Anambra and Enugu States. And, midway into the election petitions, politicians from Anambra State staged a mutiny against Okorie, accusing the national chairman of trying to trade off the Anambra State governorship mandate given to Mr. Peter Obi.

In the squabble that ensued, Chief Victor Umeh, who was the national treasurer of the party, mounted the saddle as national chairman. That odd transition sparked off a litany of litigations as Okorie travelled the courts with a view to reclaiming his office as national chairman.

Instead of walking in the steps of AD, APGA contented itself with the one state governor it produced. Distracted by the sentiment of retaining the platform as a symbol of Ikemba Emeka Ojukwu’s leadership, subsequent Anambra State governors failed to explore the feasibility of merging with other like-minds or fusing into the ruling party.

The APGA crisis, just like the current ADC imbroglio, exposed INEC’s lack of independent judgment or creative ideas in tackling indiscipline within political parties. Although the commission made efforts to pursue alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in AD’s crisis, the commission remained aloof in the APGA matter. There was no evidence that the Legal Department and Committee on Party Monitoring and Mobilisation put any effort to get to the root of the instability in the troubled parties.

In recent times, aside from PDP, Labour Party (LP) New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP), Social Democratic Party (NNPP) have all had some nervous moments trying to maintain order and decorum within their folds.

Way Out for Political Parties
The most potent sign that a political party has lost its direction is when it gives room for its processes and system to become subject to judicial interrogation.  If a party’s constitution fails to moderate behaviour and relationships, the first port of call should be the INEC.

As an impartial arbiter, INEC should be in the best place to advise courts on the ailments of a political party. Some observers have called for INEC to be dragged to court in cases involving political party misdemeanor and electoral disputes. If INEC is charged with regulating political parties, it should function the same way the Central Bank monitors the health and stability of financial institutions by monitoring the health and stability of parties so as to protect voters and democracy.

In a report on its Political Landscape Monitor, the Athena Election Observatory noted that mere existence of multiple political parties is not enough to guarantee meaningful competition.

The report read in part: “For democracy to function effectively, parties must operate within clear and predictable institutional frameworks. Leadership processes must be transparent; internal governance must be credible; and mechanisms for resolving disputes must command legitimacy.

“Recent experience underscores this challenge. Across several parties, internal disagreements have increasingly migrated from party structures to courts and regulatory bodies, raising questions about the strength of internal governance systems and the clarity of party constitutions.

“In the absence of strong internal systems, competition becomes performative rather than substantive. Parties may exist, but they do not offer coherent or credible alternatives. Political engagement then shifts from policy and programme to personality, litigation, and tactical manoeuvring.”

Anthena Centre, which is promoted by former Aviation Minister, Osita Chidoka, also discovered that the role of regulatory and judicial institutions is paramount in maintaining a healthy party system.

“Their actions, particularly in politically sensitive disputes, must be consistent, transparent, and grounded in clearly understood rules.

“Where outcomes appear uncertain or discretionary, public confidence in both the political process and the institutions that oversee it is eroded. Political actors must also strengthen the institutions through which they compete.

“The long-term viability of any party or coalition depends not only on its ability to mobilise support, but on its capacity to build internal systems that can endure beyond individual actors,” it stated.

From inconclusive election smear in the Professor Yakubu Mahmood era, INEC under Amupitan has earned stripes for interpreting status quo ante bellum without circumspection and wider stakeholder consultations.

Nigerian politicians find it easy to segregate on political platforms, but aggregate when things go awry. The constant recourse to coalition and mergers shows that multiplicity of party platforms creates more problems in the polity than it seeks to solve.