Closing democracy: INEC, the courts, and the shrinking space for opposition

[John Onyeukwu]

Closing democracy: INEC, the courts, and the shrinking space for opposition

 No tanks on the streets. No suspension of the constitution. No sweeping bans on political activity. Yet something fundamental begins to shift.

 John Onyeukwu | Policy & Reform Column, Business a.m. | Monday, April 6, 2026 | Pullout attached. 

There are moments in the life of a democracy when everything appears normal. Courts sit. Electoral bodies issue statements. Political parties hold press conferences. On the surface, the system looks stable. Beneath that surface, however, the space for genuine political competition begins to contract.

The unfolding interaction between the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) represents precisely this kind of moment. It is not simply a dispute over party leadership or internal governance. It is a revealing case study of how democracies can close quietly, not through overt repression, but through the steady accumulation of procedural decisions.

INEC’s April 1, 2026 statement reflects institutional caution. Faced with competing claims arising from ongoing litigation, including Appeal No. CA/ABJ/145/2026 and a parallel case before the Federal High Court, the Commission has opted to maintain what it describes as the status quo ante bellum - essentially preserving the situation as it existed before the dispute. It has declined to recognise any faction within the ADC, removed previously listed party officials from its portal, and suspended engagement with all parties until the courts provide clarity. In effect, it has chosen not to act.

In legal terms, this approach is defensible. The Court of Appeal issued preservatory orders designed to prevent actions that might prejudice the outcome of the case. INEC, wary of being accused of bias or taking steps that could later be invalidated, has taken what it considers the safest path. It is saying, in effect, that it will do nothing that could be interpreted as altering the subject of litigation. But doing nothing is not always neutral. In political systems, inaction is rarely passive; it redistributes advantage.

The doctrine of status quo ante bellum is meant to preserve disputes, not to suspend political life. It is intended to ensure that no party gains an unfair advantage while a case is pending. It does not ordinarily imply that a political party should cease functioning altogether. Political organisations are expected to continue their internal processes, holding meetings, organising leadership structures, and preparing for elections, even as disputes make their way through the courts.

By interpreting judicial caution as a reason to disengage entirely, INEC has effectively transformed a legal safeguard into an administrative freeze with political consequences. The ADC now finds itself in a peculiar position: a registered political party that cannot function with institutional certainty. Its leadership is not recognised. Its activities are not monitored. Its engagement with the electoral body has been suspended. All of this occurs without a formal ban. This is how democracies begin to close quietly.

The ADC has responded by challenging INEC’s interpretation of the law. It argues that no court has expressly prohibited it from conducting congresses or internal conventions, and that internal party processes, when conducted in accordance with its constitution and the Electoral Act, should not be treated as violations of judicial orders. The party insists that “democratic continuity within a political organisation is presumed unless expressly restrained by a competent court.”

That argument is not without merit. Political parties are not meant to exist in a state of suspension. They are expected to resolve disputes while continuing to operate.

Yet the ADC’s position cannot be separated from the weaknesses that produced the crisis in the first place. Internal party democracy in Nigeria is often fragile. Leadership disputes are common. Succession processes are frequently contested. Institutional mechanisms for resolving conflicts are either weak or ineffective. As a result, disagreements that might otherwise be resolved internally quickly escalate into legal battles.

INEC, in turn, is forced to respond within a constrained legal framework. It must enforce compliance with electoral laws while remaining neutral in matters of internal party politics. The challenge lies in how that neutrality is interpreted. At what point does caution become overreach? At what point does regulatory restraint begin to shape political outcomes?

These questions become more urgent when viewed against Nigeria’s broader electoral experience. In APC v. Marafa, the Supreme Court invalidated an entire party’s electoral victories in Zamfara State due to procedural violations in candidate selection. That case demonstrated how strictly courts and electoral bodies can interpret compliance, and how devastating the consequences can be. For INEC, the lesson is clear: procedural errors can carry far-reaching implications, and caution is preferable to reversal. But caution, when extended too far, begins to reshape the system it is meant to protect.

The intervention of the All Progressives Congress (APC) adds another layer to the discussion. The ruling party has endorsed INEC’s position and criticised the ADC for internal disorganisation, arguing that a party unable to manage its own affairs lacks the credibility to present itself as a viable alternative. While this reflects a political perspective, it also highlights how institutional decisions are interpreted through the lens of power. When a regulatory body’s actions align with the interests of a dominant political force, questions about neutrality inevitably arise. This alignment, whether coincidental or structural, illustrates how procedural decisions can acquire distributive political effects.

This is where warnings from voices such as Femi Falana resonate. Falana has cautioned that “through the manipulation of Nigerian courts and senior lawyers, you may have only one candidate contesting the presidential election in this country.” The statement is deliberately stark, but it reflects a broader concern: that the accumulation of legal and procedural hurdles may eventually reduce the field of political competition to a narrow few. Similarly, several analysts have warned of a gradual drift toward a one-party system, suggesting that legal mechanisms are increasingly being used to shape political outcomes in subtle but consequential ways.

These concerns are not without empirical grounding. Nigeria’s party system has undergone significant consolidation over the past decade. From a proliferation of parties, the system has gradually narrowed, through both legal deregistration and electoral outcomes. At the same time, pre-election litigation has increased substantially, with hundreds of cases filed in each election cycle. What emerges is a system in which legal compliance is no longer just a requirement, but a decisive factor in political viability.

This does not necessarily signal democratic collapse. It does, however, point to a shift in how democracy operates. Political competition is increasingly mediated by legal processes, institutional interpretations, and procedural compliance. Parties that can navigate these complexities thrive. Those that cannot risk exclusion, not through prohibition, but through procedural failure.

The ADC–INEC dispute illustrates this dynamic with unusual clarity. The issue is not whether opposition is formally allowed. It is whether opposition can function effectively within the constraints of the system. When regulatory caution leads to the suspension of engagement with a political party, and when judicial interpretation is extended to the point of institutional paralysis, the result is a narrowing of political space.

INEC would argue that it is simply following the law. That is, in a narrow sense, correct. But democracy is not sustained by legal correctness alone. It depends on the ability of institutions to balance caution with participation, and enforcement with openness. The challenge for regulators is not only to avoid illegality, but to avoid inadvertently constraining political competition through excessive procedural caution.

The ADC, for its part, must confront its internal weaknesses. A political party that cannot resolve leadership disputes internally cannot reasonably expect to function effectively within a competitive electoral system. Internal democracy is not optional; it is essential. Without it, parties become vulnerable to external intervention, legal challenges, and regulatory constraints. Leadership ambiguity creates openings for factional contestation, and those divisions often migrate into the courts. Once disputes are judicialised, the party loses a measure of control over its own future.

Yet even as these realities are acknowledged, the broader implication must remain in focus. The issue is not simply the fate of one political party. It is the trajectory of the system itself.

Democracies do not always collapse in dramatic fashion. More often, they evolve slowly, shaped by a series of incremental decisions that, taken together, alter the nature of political competition. Each decision, viewed in isolation, may appear justified, even necessary. But cumulatively, they can produce a system that is less open, less competitive, and less representatives of the electorate’s preferences.

Nigeria is not witnessing the abolition of democracy. It is witnessing the gradual tightening of its contours. The number of actors’ remains, but the conditions under which they operate are becoming more restrictive. The rules are still in place, but their application is becoming more consequential. The system continues to function, but the space within which it functions is narrowing.

Political participation remains formally protected, yet the practical ability to compete is increasingly conditioned on navigating a dense web of legal and procedural requirements. This is how democracies close: quietly, incrementally, and often legally.

Follow the The Accountable Reform channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va6de2U7oQhkR1uYDA1S 

John Onyeukwu
http://www.policy.hu/onyeukwu/

 http://about.me/onyeukwu
“Let us move forward to fight poverty, to establish equity, and assure peace for the next generation.”
-- James D. Wolfensohn
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete or destroy the message. Thank you.