Strip away the legal technicalities, and what remains is a governance fitness test — one that Nigeria’s most experienced opposition politicians are failing publicly. A Critical Analysis by KEHINDE ADEGOKE.
There is a particular kind of irony. No satirist could have scripted it better. The very politicians who spent the past three years positioning themselves as Nigeria’s salvation attended presidential debates and signed anti-corruption pledges. They thundered about systemic failure at rallies. Yet, they cannot manage a single political party. They end up in court. The ADC crisis goes beyond a simple legal dispute over committee roles. It reveals that long-standing figures in Nigerian politics have recurring character and competency flaws. Ironically, these are the very weaknesses they criticise publicly, yet this internal party conflict has now exposed them.
The Foundational Arrogance of Party Hijacking
Let’s start at the beginning, where the moral failure is clearest. The African Democratic Congress was built and sustained by politicians who invested resources, networks, and capital over two decades. It was their structure. Even if modest, it was their home. Ahead of 2027, heavyweight politicians encountered rejection or declining relevance. They descended not to build, but to use the party.
They brought ambition, entourages, media sway, and a transactional mindset. What they did not bring was respect for the institution.
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and ex-Senate President David Mark are not political novices. Their associates have vast experience. They have been senators, vice presidents, governors, and party chieftains. They have seen parties collapse from internal crises—sometimes, due to their own actions.
One honest question: Did they think they could parachute into a party, seize control through constitutional shortcuts, and not face resistance? Resistance is certain when elected bodies are overridden and protocols ignored.
Either they assumed the original structures would yield, showing arrogance that treats smaller politicians as disposable. Or, they failed to consider the implications. Both scenarios are damning. If they miscalculated, they lack strategic intelligence. If they failed to calculate, they lack the discipline that governance demands.
The Party-Building Failure Is Not Incidental — It Is Structural
This raises a question: Despite their experience and resources, why do Nigeria’s top politicians struggle to build and sustain effective parties?
In stable democracies, politicians who lose primaries feel excluded or disagree and either reform internally or build new parties. They do not constantly jump from party to party, wreck platforms, and move on.
Atiku has been in the PDP. He briefly joined the APC, then returned to the PDP. He has flirted with platforms, threatened defections, and returned again. This pattern is not unique to him. It defines Nigeria’s political elite. The explanation is uncomfortable but necessary. These politicians have never needed strong institutions. Strong institutions constrain them. A democratic party structure features clear tenures, transparent congresses, and accountable leadership. This makes transactional politics difficult. In such an environment, you cannot simply buy a nomination, install a caretaker, or dissolve an elected committee by fiat.
Their inability to build strong parties reflects their attitudes. Those who reject party discipline won’t accept it in government. The ADC crisis shows how this breeds future governance problems.
The Jurisdiction Question and What It Reveals
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik’s ruling is significant not just for its immediate legal implications but for what it shows about political tactics. The defendants argued that the courts should not interfere because the dispute was internal. Their aim was to keep the judiciary away.
This is a familiar gambit. It deserves to be called out plainly. The same political class invokes court jurisdiction eagerly when aggrieved. They do this when elections are disputed or appointments are contested. They also act for rights protection. But when a court threatens to scrutinise their conduct, they suddenly discover the sanctity of internal dispute resolution mechanisms. Justice Abdulmalik disposed of this argument. Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution is not a suggestion. It is a mandate for internal democracy. When a party allegedly violates its own constitution and the nation’s laws, the court is not intruding. It is enforcing the law.
The ruling that ‘the argument that this court lacks jurisdiction cannot stand where constitutional breaches are alleged’ is sound law. More importantly, it is a principle the political class has consistently eroded. The defendants could not exhaust internal mechanisms because those same forces controlled them. This trap is well-known in party circles. You cannot appeal to an opponent’s committee and call it due process.
Hypocrisy, Incompetence, or Something Worse?
The question of whether it is hypocrisy or incompetence to blame President Tinubu or the APC for this crisis is the simplest question here. It is both, and worse.
It is hypocrisy because these politicians present themselves as the orderly alternative to the government.
They campaign on institutional respect. They cite court orders when those orders favour them. Then they violate their own party’s constitutional provisions. They override elected state executive committees and appoint a congressional committee by fiat. While claiming democratic credentials, they act inconsistently. This violates democratic standards. It is a lie about who they are.
Even if reorganisation was legitimate, the method was incompetent. Any strategist would warn: You cannot override elected structures without legal risk. INEC recognition depends on compliance. Original ADC members have legal standing. Yet, they proceeded.
Beyond hypocrisy and incompetence, a deeper issue exists. These politicians fundamentally believe institutions are tools to be controlled, not frameworks for everyone—including themselves—to follow. They use rules to restrict others but do not hold themselves to the same standards. This attitude has created governance challenges in different administrations involving these politicians.
The Governance Fitness Test: They Are Failing in Public
Strip away legal technicalities. What remains is stark: politicians seeking to manage a nation of over 240 million people, many ethnic groups, and a complex federal bureaucracy. With security challenges, inter-agency rivalry, and a fractured economy, they cannot resolve a party leadership dispute without a court. This creates factions, alarms INEC, and ends in a judgment that embarrasses them.
Nigeria’s main governance problem is not a lack of vision or policy, but poor management of institutions. Politicians focus on personal interests rather than building and respecting systems, as demonstrated by the ADC crisis.
The Angle That Is Not Being Discussed Enough
Coverage overlooks the crisis’s real impact: on voters, not just politicians.
Every time Nigeria’s opposition fractures, fragments, and litigates itself into irrelevance, democracy suffers. Democracy requires viable opposition. This is not a courtesy to losers but a check on power. When the opposition cannot govern itself, it cannot be a credible check. Instead, it acts as a pressure valve. It absorbs dissatisfaction but does not turn it into accountable alternatives.
Citizens who saw the ADC—or its contenders—as alternatives should know: this is not isolated. It is a preview, and the audition is not going well.
Conclusion
Justice Abdulmalik’s ruling is more than a court order about party congresses. It reveals Nigerian political leadership candidly. Experienced, ambitious men were stopped by a court from violating their own party’s constitution. A judge had to remind them of the principles of institutional democracy. They are now on record in a federal court judgment for circumventing elected organs, overriding tenures, and drawing INEC into a flawed process.
Nigeria deserves a better opposition. It will only get one when those who seek to govern first show they can govern themselves.
PIX: ADC MATTER
