By  Magnus Onyibe

The current imbroglio between the African Democratic Congress (ADC), now positioned as Nigeria’s leading opposition party, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the nation’s electoral umpire, did not erupt overnight. The crisis reached a boiling point when ADC leaders stormed INEC’s office on April 8th, but the tension had long been brewing.

Although the embattled ADC has accused the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) of fueling the internal fire consuming the party, such an explanation appears overly simplistic. The roots of the conflict are far more complex and multifaceted.

The present turmoil is the cumulative outcome of several seemingly minor issues that were initially dismissed as inconsequential. These oversights by key stakeholders — the ADC, the National Assembly, INEC, the judiciary, the presidency, and the broader political class — have now snowballed into a storm threatening the credibility of the 2027 general elections.

In my assessment, responsibility for the crisis is widely shared. The logjam obstructing Nigeria’s democratic progress stems from both actions and inactions across the political spectrum.

Beginning with the ADC, which has called for the resignation of the INEC chairman over the delisting of its leadership from the commission’s website, there are serious questions about the party’s internal processes. It appears the new leadership may have failed to conduct thorough due diligence before consolidating control of the party structure.

By recognising and negotiating primarily with the Ralf Nwosu faction, the new leaders seemingly overlooked other critical stakeholders whose dissent has now proved consequential. The emergence of the Nafiu Bala Gombe faction has cast doubt on the legitimacy of the appointments of David Mark as chairman and Rauf Aregbesola to a leadership role. This development might have been avoided had all internal interests been properly reconciled beforehand.

In this regard, the ADC’s legal team must shoulder part of the blame for failing to close evident loopholes. The situation is akin to purchasing a property without discovering an existing lien because proper searches were not conducted at the appropriate land registry.

How could the effective “acquisition” of a political party proceed without securing the alignment and verified consent of all critical stakeholders? In mergers and acquisitions, where shareholders — known or unknown — fail to sign off due to disputes, transactions are typically deemed null and void. The apparent procedural lapses raise troubling questions about the quality of leadership and internal governance within the ADC.

Equally concerning is the party’s inability to contain the grievances of the Nafiu Gombe faction before the dispute spirals out of control. What began as manageable internal dissent has now become an existential threat.

If a party struggles to manage its internal crises, doubts inevitably arise about its capacity to govern effectively at any level — local, state, or national. For a political platform seeking to unseat the ruling APC at the federal level, the inability to resolve internal discord is not merely embarrassing; it is disqualifying.

Further complicating matters is the fact that the aggrieved Nafiu Gombe had approached the court as far back as last year and secured a favorable High Court judgment. In September, David Mark reportedly challenged that ruling at the Court of Appeal. By March 12 this year, another judgment was delivered — which the ADC has since interpreted as being in its favor.

However, the roughly seven to eight months between the High Court and Appeal Court judgments should have provided ample time for a politically savvy leadership and competent legal team to resolve the dispute amicably. Instead, the party allowed the crisis to fester. This apparent complacency reinforces the view that the ADC has, to a large extent, become the architect of its own misfortune.

That said, the ADC is not alone in bearing responsibility for the political bind in which Nigeria now finds itself. The National Assembly of Nigeria (NASS) must also share in the blame, particularly for repealing and re-enacting the Electoral Act in early 2026 without sufficiently sealing critical loopholes.

The revised Electoral Act 2026 appears inadequately fortified against exploitation by opportunistic politicians who weaponise the courts for nuisance value rather than genuine justice. Given Nigeria’s history — where the fate of elections has often been determined more by courtrooms than polling booths — lawmakers ought to have anticipated and blocked such vulnerabilities. Instead, gaps remain, and they are now being exploited, much like in the internal crisis within the All Progressives Congress (APC).

Having amended the electoral framework multiple times in the past decade, the legislature cannot escape culpability in the unfolding logjam. My intention here is to urge NASS to reflect on where it metaphorically “dropped the ball.”

For instance, in shortening the timelines between party primaries, conventions, and the commencement of campaigns, lawmakers may not have sufficiently considered the practical constraints this would impose. The compressed schedule now appears to be pushing parties like the ADC into open confrontation with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), as they struggle to organize congresses and conventions under regulatory supervision while still operating under judicial and administrative sanctions.

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.