By Magnus Onyibe

One cannot help but ask: was the ADC’s initial reluctance to seek judicial resolution rooted in fear that the outcome might not favour it especially in a political environment where the ruling APC wields greater institutional and financial influence?

If so, that perception — whether justified or not — is deeply troubling. A democracy can not thrive where litigants doubt the neutrality of its courts.

Although reforms initiated by the Chief Justice and the National Judicial Council have reportedly reduced practices such as forum shopping and conflicting judgments across jurisdictions, which defined politics in Nigeria at the nascent stage ,concerns still linger. Some critics argue that opaque rulings and the frequent deployment of dense Latin expressions, without adequate explanation, only deepen public confusion.

If justice is to command respect, it must not only be done but must be seen to be done — clearly, transparently, and in language accessible to all. Perhaps what Nigeria needs now is not merely judicial pronouncements but judicial clarity.

Several Latin expressions commonly deployed in Nigerian courts — though historically rooted in legal tradition — often generate unnecessary confusion among the public. If clarity and transparency are the hallmarks of justice, then the continued reliance on untranslated Latin phrases deserves reconsideration.

Some of the frequently used expressions include: Bona fide – in good faith; genuine, Prima facie – at first glance; based on initial evidence, Ex parte – proceedings conducted for one party without notice to the other, Res ipsa loquitur – the matter speaks for itself and Status quo – the existing state of affairs.

While such phrases are part of legal heritage, their application without immediate and clear English explanation can create avoidable ambiguity. The National Judicial Council (NJC), as the regulatory body of the judiciary, may need to encourage greater linguistic clarity in judgments. If Latin expressions must be used, they should be accompanied by straightforward translations to prevent misinterpretation — especially in politically sensitive cases.

For example:
Bona fide: “The court held that the buyer acted in good faith, unaware of the property dispute.”

Prima facie: “There is sufficient initial evidence of negligence to shift the burden of proof.”
Ex parte: “An injunction was granted urgently without hearing the other party, pending full proceedings.”

Res ipsa loquitur: “The facts speak for themselves in establishing liability.”

Status quo: “The existing situation must be maintained until the case is resolved.”

Concerns have been raised that ambiguous judicial language sometimes gives the impression — fairly or unfairly — that litigants are kept in prolonged cycles of legal proceedings, returning repeatedly for clarification for the percuniary benefits of the bar and bench. Such perceptions, whether accurate or not, erode public trust.

Beyond the judiciary, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and its chairman must also share responsibility in the current controversy. By personally interpreting the court’s use of the phrase status quo ante bellum — meaning “the state of affairs before the dispute” — rather than seeking formal judicial clarification, the chairman appeared to assume an interpretative role constitutionally reserved for the courts.

In acting on that interpretation by delisting ADC executives, including David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola, the chairman may have inadvertently placed himself in the position of adjudicator in a matter involving the agency that he leads. Even if well-intentioned, such action risks create the perception of regulatory overreach.

It is possible that professional confidence plays a role. As both a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, and a law professor, he may have believed he was acting on firm legal ground — terra firma, to borrow another Latin phrase meaning “solid ground.” However, once appointed as an electoral umpire, the obligation shifts from academic or legal interpretation to strict procedural neutrality and adherence to institutional protocol.

This episode also highlights the broader risk of appointing a new INEC chairman from outside the commission shortly before major electoral cycles. Having assumed office on October last year only roughly seven (7) months ago, and already navigating sensitive state and national electoral preparations, the chairman may simply be confronting the steep learning curve associated with such a critical role.

Institutional memory matters. Grooming successors from within the commission could help preserve operational continuity and reduce avoidable errors during transitional periods. Electoral management is too delicate to be subjected to steep on boarding risks close to major elections.

Recent developments — including proposals to digitally update the voter register and the scheduling of election-related activities during sensitive religious periods, later adjusted — suggest that broader consultation and gradual familiarisation with institutional realities may have been beneficial. But Amupitan did not enjoy such luxury of time the rope.

For these reasons, the executive branch, which appoints the INEC chairman, may need to reassess the administrative framework governing such appointments. Electoral stability depends not only on legal compliance but also on prudent timing and continuity.

As for the presidency, it may serve the institution of INEC better to allow the commission to defend its own actions. Public defense by executive spokespersons risks reinforcing opposition allegations that INEC is not fully independent. Perception, in electoral matters, can be as consequential as reality.

Meanwhile, Nigeria’s political landscape has been shifting since the face-off between ADC and lNEC escalated.

Opposition parties appear to be exploring coalition arrangements to challenge the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). Hence, the former NNPP leader Musa kwakwanso has joined the ranks of ADC even as the factional leader  of the PDP , Kabiru Tanimu Turaki, has been seen mingling with members of ADC leadership.

Whether that momentum can alter the trajectory of the 2027 elections remains uncertain.
Coincidentally, the unfolding scenario is similar to what happened leading up to the 1999 transition.

The INEC had initially refused to register the Alliance for Democracy (AD) in late 1998. The reason is that it did not meet the nationwide spread criteria INEC set for party registration. Just like the ADC might fail to qualify for participation in 2027 elections if its primaries conducted without the oversight of INEC may render it technically disqualified for the 2027 elections. To qualify, in 1999, a party had to show offices and support in at least two-thirds of Nigeria’s states. AD was seen as a Southwest party and did not clear that bar at first.

This was controversial because the 1999 transition was meant to placate the Southwest after June 12, 1993. So INEC eventually registered AD after pressure and negotiations, but the compromise was the AD/APP joint ticket. Since only one party logo could appear on the ballot, they ran Olu Falae under the APP platform, with Shinkafi from APP as VP.

Since as l have proven with facts that the faults are not only emanating from the ADC, but lNEC , NASS, the judiciary, the executive branch and indeed the entire political class in general, it is not likely  that the establishment will screen the ADC out of contention for the 2027 election and make it one horse race.

But what compromises the lNEC would make is the trillion dollar question, which is perhaps as complex as untying the proverbial gorddian knot or decoding the famous Davinchi code.

But one thing that is as constant as the northern star is that from the narrative above, political intrigue is ad infinitum.

Concluded.

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.