By Magnus Onyibe

As many legal and public policy experts would agree, laws that are unrealistic or detached from operational realities are inherently difficult to enforce. When legislation fails to align with political and institutional realities, it risks breeding non-compliance and unintended consequences. The current standoff — with the ADC proceeding with activities despite INEC’s regulatory objections — illustrates this danger.

The ADC’s apparent defiance stems from a fear of exclusion from the 2027 elections, reminiscent of past scenarios such as the Zamfara episode, which INEC’s chairman has cited in justifying the derecognition of certain ADC factional leaders, including David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola.

The looming question is whether Nigeria could once again face circumstances that necessitate invoking the Doctrine of Necessity to preserve democratic participation. The precedent exists. During the constitutional crisis following the incapacitation of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua in 2010 — when he was hospitalised in Saudi Arabia without formally transferring power — Nigeria confronted a dangerous leadership vacuum. It was only through the invocation of the Doctrine of Necessity, under the Senate presidency of David Mark, that Vice President Goodluck Jonathan was empowered to act as president.

If opposition parties, due to legal entanglements and time constraints, fail to meet regulatory conditions to field candidates — leaving only the APC to contest in 2027, or prompting an opposition boycott — the legitimacy of the election itself could be called into question.

Despite the gathering storm, there may yet be a silver lining. The ADC’s earlier hesitation to approach the Supreme Court appeared linked to timing constraints following the Appeal Court’s judgment and INEC’s regulatory deadlines. It is, therefore, a welcome development that the party has now sought redress at the apex court.

The ADC seems to recognise that while courts generally refrain from interfering in internal party affairs, that principle is not absolute. Where individual rights are allegedly infringed, judicial intervention remains permissible.

One hopes that the Supreme Court will clarify the legal ambiguities — particularly regarding INEC’s reliance on the term status quo ante bellum without sufficient interpretative guidance. Critics argue that the commission’s chairman may have overstepped his boundary by appearing to act as both regulator and adjudicator rather than seeking judicial clarification where uncertainty existed.

More broadly, the episode raises renewed concerns about the criteria and process for appointing the INEC chairman. Some observers contend that Nigeria experienced fewer controversies when retired jurists headed the electoral body compared to periods when academics occupied the role.

Ultimately, a significant portion of responsibility rests with both the legislature and the executive branch, which approves presidential nominations for the INEC chairmanship. The current crisis reopens the debate on how electoral umpires are selected — a matter that demands urgent and thoughtful reconsideration.

The judiciary, too, cannot be exempted from the blame. As the constitutional interpreter of the law, it bears the solemn responsibility of clarifying legislation enacted by lawmakers. Yet, in the ADC versus INEC dispute, the court’s judgment appears to have been couched in language open to multiple interpretations, thereby creating further ambiguity rather than certainty.

The lack of clarity has necessitated either a return to court for interpretation or, regrettably, a resort to self-help — as reflected in the recent protest by leaders of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), who stormed the headquarters of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) demanding the resignation of its chairman.

Since Nigeria’s return to multiparty democracy in 1999, politicians and citizens alike have consistently been urged not to take the law into their own hands but to seek judicial redress in resolving disputes. To a significant extent, that counsel has been heeded. Unlike earlier eras, when violence was frequently deployed as a political tool, aggrieved actors have largely turned to the courts.

History reminds us why this shift was necessary. The violent “wetie” episodes in the old Western Region — particularly the clashes following the disputed 1983 Ondo State governorship election between supporters of Akin Omoboriowo of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) and incumbent Governor Michael Adekunle Ajasin of the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) — led to widespread arson, killings, and a breakdown of law and order. Allegations of electoral malpractice and Omoboriowo’s defection from UPN to NPN intensified tensions, culminating in tragic consequences.

Against that historical backdrop, the current posture of some ADC leaders is troubling. Rather than relying solely on judicial remedies — as has become the norm, and as reflected in the now-common political refrain, “go to court” — the party initially appeared to pivot toward protest as a form of pressure. Although the demonstration at INEC’s office remained peaceful and did not degenerate into violence, it nonetheless signals a worrisome shift.

In plain terms, resorting to public protest suggests that confidence in the judiciary as an impartial arbiter may be eroding among sections of the political class.

This development, while unfortunate, does not arise in a vacuum. Many Nigerian politicians — including figures within both the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) — have long histories within the corridors of power. Over the years, there have been persistent allegations and even public admissions of undue relationships between some politicians and elements within the legal system.

Such perceptions — whether exaggerated or real — have fueled the belief that judicial outcomes may sometimes reflect influence and financial muscle rather than pure legal merit. For opposition parties with comparatively limited access to state power and resources, this perception can breed hesitation and distrust. It may partly explain why the ADC initially appeared reluctant to approach the Supreme Court.

Indeed, concerns about judicial integrity have not gone unacknowledged. Both the current Chief Justice of Nigeria, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, and the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Afam Osigwe, have publicly cautioned against judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties and warned against conduct capable of undermining public confidence in the courts.
To be continued tomorrow.

Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, an alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, a former commissioner in the Delta State government, wrote from Lagos.