INEC's Challenge: Managing Opposition Parties and Judicial Verdicts Ahead of 2027 Polls
In Nigeria's Fourth Republic, opposition political parties have consistently been entangled in internal conflicts, a situation the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has struggled to resolve effectively. Unless the commission adopts a more proactive approach in regulating political parties, its independence will remain under suspicion, as highlighted by ongoing debates.
Judicial Pronouncements and Electoral Dynamics
The recent Court of Appeal ruling in the case of Mr. Nafiu Bala Gombe (Case No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025) has brought the Latin expression status quo ante bellum into the spotlight as a contentious political tie-breaker. Nigeria's electoral history is marked by judicial decisions that, instead of settling disputes, have often confused litigants and citizens alike, with terms like 'substantial non-compliance' and 'locus standi' adding to the complexity.
Since the return to multi-party presidential democracy, INEC and the judiciary have played pivotal roles in determining election outcomes, often sidelining voters as passive participants. The persistent issue of rigging has driven efforts for electoral reforms, yet judicial obfuscation in disputed elections, dating back to the Second Republic, continues to undermine these efforts.
INEC's Role and Public Perception
While INEC focuses on managing elections and monitoring party compliance with laws and regulations, the judiciary operates independently, sometimes leading to perceptions of bias. For instance, INEC Chairman Prof. Joash Ojo Amupitan, a law professor, has faced criticism for interpreting the Court of Appeal's order on status quo ante bellum in the African Democratic Congress (ADC) leadership dispute, with many Nigerians viewing it as unfair.
This situation echoes historical concerns about judicial corruption, as noted by former President Olusegun Obasanjo, who highlighted how corrupt judges could manipulate outcomes. The principle that "justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done," as articulated by Lord Hewart in 1924, underscores the need for transparency to maintain public trust.
Historical Precedents and Party Crises
INEC has long faced challenges with opposition parties. In the lead-up to the 2003 elections, the Alliance for Democracy (AD) was divided by internal strife between Chief Mojisola Akinfenwa and Bisi Akande, leading to factionalism and losses to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Similarly, the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) has experienced intra-party conflicts, such as the leadership dispute between Chief Chekwas Okorie and Chief Victor Umeh, which exposed INEC's lack of independent judgment in resolving party indiscipline.
Recent parties like the Labour Party (LP), New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP), and Social Democratic Party (SDP) have also struggled with internal order, highlighting a broader issue of weak governance within political entities.
Path Forward for Political Parties and INEC
When political parties allow their processes to become subject to judicial scrutiny, it signals a loss of direction. INEC, as an impartial arbiter, should be empowered to advise courts on party ailments and regulate parties akin to how the Central Bank monitors financial institutions. Some observers advocate for dragging INEC to court in cases of party misdemeanors to enhance accountability.
A report by the Athena Election Observatory, promoted by former Aviation Minister Osita Chidoka, emphasizes that for democracy to thrive, parties need transparent leadership, credible internal governance, and legitimate dispute-resolution mechanisms. The report warns that without strong systems, political competition becomes performative, shifting focus from policy to personality and litigation.
From the era of Professor Yakubu Mahmood's inconclusive elections to Amupitan's current tenure, INEC has faced criticism for interpreting status quo ante bellum without adequate stakeholder consultation. Nigerian politicians often form coalitions and mergers in times of crisis, suggesting that multiple party platforms may create more problems than they solve in the polity.
