The trajectory of Nigeria’s democracy in recent weeks has been anything but reassuring. A pattern is emerging, and it is one that suggests a calculated drift towards weakening credible opposition forces ahead of the 2027 general elections. Whether by design or default, the cumulative effect of recent political and institutional developments points to a troubling erosion of the multiparty system that underpins democratic governance.
The protest by the African Democratic Congress (ADC) on April 8, led by the second-, third- and fourth-place finishers in the 2023 presidential election, should not be dismissed lightly. It is a significant warning signal. When major opposition figures converge in such a manner, it reflects not just partisan grievance but a deeper anxiety about the shrinking democratic space. That signal must not be taken for granted.
At the heart of any functioning democracy is a viable opposition. The steady weakening, or perceived targeting, of opposition parties undermines the very fabric of democratic competition. Without credible alternatives, elections risk becoming mere formalities rather than genuine contests of ideas and leadership. The current trajectory, unfortunately, suggests a movement in that direction.
It is in this context that the role of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) becomes even more critical. Constitutionally designed as an impartial umpire, INEC is expected to stand above partisan fray. Yet, recent developments have drawn the commission into avoidable controversies, creating the impression that it is no longer merely officiating but is itself entangled in the contest. An umpire who appears to be in the ring rather than on the sidelines raises fundamental concerns about fairness and credibility.
To be clear, controversies around INEC are not new. Since Nigeria’s return to democratic rule in 1999, successive heads of the electoral commission have faced varying degrees of criticism. The tenure of Prof. Maurice Iwu remains widely regarded as having overseen the deeply flawed 2007 elections; an exercise so contentious that even its principal beneficiary, the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, publicly acknowledged its shortcomings and initiated electoral reforms. Notably, that election remains the only one in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic without a publicly available final presidential result.
Subsequent leadership has not been spared scrutiny. Prof. Attahiru Jega faced criticism despite introducing reforms, while Prof. Mahmud Yakubu was faulted for the challenges surrounding technological deployment during the 2023 polls. However, what distinguishes the current moment is that the present INEC leadership is being intensely scrutinised for an election it has yet to conduct. The credibility of the 2027 polls is already being questioned based on the posture, antecedents and perceived actions of the current INEC chairman. That, in itself, is a dangerous precedent.
Equally concerning is the role of the judiciary. As the final arbiter in disputes, the courts are expected to provide clarity and finality. Unfortunately, recent judgments have too often deepened confusion rather than resolved it. When parties to the same suit can interpret a ruling in entirely different ways, with each claiming validation, the very purpose of judicial intervention is defeated.
With elections drawing closer, this trend is particularly worrisome. The persistence of conflicting interpretations and interlocutory orders risks destabilising the political environment further. Section 83 of the Electoral Act, alongside Supreme Court pronouncements in the leadership crises of both the Labour Party and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), has clearly established that courts should refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of political parties. Yet, lower courts continue to issue orders that exacerbate internal disputes, especially within opposition parties. This must stop.
The judiciary must resist any perception of being drawn into partisan struggles. The systematic weakening of opposition parties, whether through political manoeuvring or judicial overreach, does not serve democracy. The courts must not, wittingly or unwittingly, become instruments in that process. As the last hope of the common man, the judiciary must rise to its responsibility with clarity, courage and consistency.
More broadly, the current moment raises uncomfortable questions about the independence of Nigeria’s institutions. Effective democracy relies on a system of checks and balances, where each arm of government operates without undue influence. When institutions appear to be falling over themselves to align with the executive, the equilibrium necessary for democratic health is lost. This perception, whether accurate or not, is damaging.
The spotlight on Nigeria, both domestically and internationally, is intense. The actions and signals emanating from the government and its institutions are being closely watched. An official posture that suggests all is well, despite mounting concerns, does little to inspire confidence. The government must recognise that its legitimacy is derived from the very democratic system that now appears to be under strain. Undermining that system, even indirectly, is ultimately self-defeating.
Those in positions of power must not take Nigerians for granted. The pursuit of electoral victory in 2027, no matter how strategic or determined, must not come at the expense of democratic integrity. Elections can only hold meaning within a system that guarantees fairness, competition and institutional independence. To erode these pillars is to endanger the entire democratic project.
At Daily Trust, we affirm that Nigeria cannot afford such a regression. The gains of democratic governance, however imperfect, must be protected and strengthened. The alternative is too costly to contemplate.
It is, therefore, our considered position that all actors in the electoral and democratic space must recognise that, while winning elections is important, preserving democracy is paramount.