By Chief Akinwumi Akinfenwa
There comes a time in the life of a nation when silence becomes complicity, and “neutrality” becomes a convenient mask for injustice. Nigeria may well be at that moment.
What the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has done in its recent handling of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) is not mere administrative caution. It is not harmless bureaucratic delay. It is a dangerous constitutional aberration—one that strikes at the very heart of multiparty democracy.
Let us dispense with the polite fiction.
*INEC Has No Power to Cripple a Political Party*
Under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, political parties are not appendages of INEC. They are independent democratic institutions. Sections 221 and 223 are unambiguous: parties organize themselves, choose their leadership, and participate freely in the political process.
INEC’s role is clearly defined in the Electoral Act 2022—to regulate, monitor, and supervise, not to suspend, erase, or incapacitate.
Yet, in one sweeping move, INEC has:
Withdrawn engagement with a legally registered party
Removed its leadership from official recognition platforms
Created a vacuum where none constitutionally exists
This is not neutrality.
This is institutional overreach dressed up as caution.
*“Status Quo” Is Not a Weapon of Political Paralysis*
We are told that a Court of Appeal order to “maintain status quo” justifies this extraordinary action.
This is either a gross misunderstanding of the law—or a deliberate manipulation of it.
“Status quo” does not mean:
Shut down a party
Freeze its operations
Pretend its leadership does not exist
It means: maintain the last lawful position until the court decides otherwise.
The Supreme Court has already settled this principle in Amaechi v. INEC—INEC does not determine political legitimacy. Parties do. Courts may review. But INEC must not preempt or distort that process.
What INEC has done is not compliance with a court order.
It is a distortion of it—with grave political consequences.
*Neutrality That Silences Is Not Neutrality*
We must confront an uncomfortable truth: there is no such thing as “neutrality” when the effect of an action is to silence one side.
By “freezing” ADC, INEC has effectively:
Denied it operational capacity
Disrupted its internal processes
Weakened its ability to engage in national political discourse
And we are expected to believe this is accidental?
No. In politics, effects matter as much as intentions. And the effect here is unmistakable: a rising opposition platform has been administratively strangled at a critical moment in Nigeria’s political evolution.
*A Pattern Nigerians Must Not Ignore*
Let us ask the question many are afraid to voice:
Why ADC? Why now?
Nigeria’s political space has witnessed numerous factional disputes across parties. Yet, never has “neutrality” required total institutional disengagement to this extent.
What has changed?
ADC is no longer a fringe player. It is increasingly seen as a credible coalition platform ahead of 2027—a rallying point for those dissatisfied with the current direction of governance.
And suddenly, it finds itself:
Entrapped in legal technicalities
Disengaged by the electoral umpire
Rendered temporarily ineffective
Coincidence?
Nigerians are not naïve.
*Internal Crisis Is Not an Invitation for External Suppression*
Yes, ADC has internal disagreements. That is the nature of democracy. But let us be clear: internal disputes do not justify external suffocation.
Courts exist to resolve such matters—not to provide cover for administrative excess.
To argue that “ADC is its own problem” is to conveniently ignore the far more dangerous precedent being set:
That an institution can exploit internal disagreements to cripple a political party without a final judicial pronouncement.
Today it is ADC.
Tomorrow, it could be any party that dares to challenge entrenched power.
*This Is Bigger Than ADC*
This is not about personalities.
It is not about factions.
It is not even about one political party.
It is about a fundamental question:
Will Nigeria remain a constitutional democracy, or drift into a system where institutions quietly decide which political voices are allowed to function?
When an electoral body begins to act in ways that:
Restrict political participation
Create unequal conditions for parties
Influence the balance of political competition
Then democracy itself is under threat.
*A Line Must Be Drawn*
The ADC will not be silenced—neither by internal disagreements nor by external overreach.
We will:
Pursue all lawful avenues to assert our rights
Challenge any unconstitutional action
Continue to stand as a platform for democratic alternatives
But beyond ADC, Nigerians must rise to defend the integrity of the system itself.
Because once institutions learn that they can act beyond the law without consequence, democracy becomes a performance, not a reality.
*Conclusion: The Cost of Silence*
History teaches us that democracies rarely collapse in dramatic fashion. They erode—slowly, subtly—through actions that are justified as temporary, technical, or procedural.
This is how it begins.
A party is “frozen.”
A voice is “paused.”
A process is “delayed.”
Until one day, the system no longer belongs to the people.
INEC must retrace its steps. It must return to the narrow path defined by the Constitution and the law. Anything less is a betrayal of its mandate—and a disservice to the Nigerian people.
Because in the end, the question is simple:
If institutions can decide when a political party should stop functioning, then who truly owns Nigeria’s democracy?
© Chief Akinwumi Akinfenwa
Political Scientist, Public Policy Analyst, Social Commentator, and Advocate for Constitutional Decency lives in Ibadan
07062986613 for Calls/SMS
09091700203 for WhatsApp
