Judicial complicity, political collusion and reduction of democratic space in Nigeria, by Okechukwu Nwanguma – THISAGE

Victor Umeh’s warning that some judges are being used to undermine democracy is not an isolated warning: it is part of a broader and deeply worrying pattern. When comparing recent actions against opposition activities, a clearer picture emerges: a systematic effort to narrow Nigeria’s multiparty democratic space through a combination of judicial oversight, executive pressure and regulatory complicity.

At the heart of this model are the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), whose actions – direct or indirect – are increasingly perceived as converging in ways that disadvantage opposition parties.

*From courtrooms to conference halls: a model of repression*

The controversy over judicial interference in party leadership disputes, despite the clear provisions of the Election Law 2026, is one dimension of the problem. The willingness of some courts to take legal action on internal party affairs – often accompanied by questionable interim orders – creates legal uncertainty and destabilizes opposition parties from within.

But the problem doesn’t end in the classroom.

Reports of attempts to frustrate the African Democratic Congress (ADC) convention at the Rainbow Event Center reveal an even more direct form of political interference. Allegations that a private venue could have its license revoked simply for hosting an opposition rally point to a dangerous abuse of state power.

If true, this would represent a shift from covert manipulation to overt intimidation.

A political party that has fulfilled all contractual and legal obligations should not be forced to abandon its convention. Such tactics – pressuring private businesses, obstructing legal meetings and creating artificial barriers – are hallmarks of democratic backsliding.

*The worrying role of INEC*

The role of the Independent National Electoral Commission in this emerging model cannot be ignored. As a constitutionally mandated arbiter, INEC should act with strict neutrality. However, there are growing concerns that his actions – and in some cases, his silence – are creating a climate in which opposition parties find themselves at a structural disadvantage.

From disputes over recognition of party leadership to management of internal party processes, the perception of validation or selective intervention erodes trust. Even the appearance of prejudice is harmful enough; in electoral governance, credibility is everything.

When electoral bodies are believed to align, however subtly, with the interests of the parties in power, the entire democratic process is called into question.

*The normalization of democratic erosion*

What makes this moment particularly dangerous is not a single incident, but the cumulative effect of many.

As the Nigerian Bar Association has rightly observed, democracy can be undermined through “false litigation, forum shopping and bad faith enforcement designed to secure undemocratic political advantage.” To this must now be added administrative intimidation and the abuse of regulatory powers to stifle opposition activities.

This is how democracies are dismantled, not always through coups or radical decrees, but through incremental, often deniable actions:

– A court that assumes jurisdiction where it has none

– A lawyer who files a politically motivated lawsuit

– A regulatory threat against a venue hosting the opposition

– An electoral body that does not act decisively or impartially

Each act, taken alone, may seem minor. Together, they form a coordinated architecture of suppression.

*Using state power as a weapon against political competition*

The fact that a private events center was targeted to host an opposition congress highlights a fundamental issue: the weaponization of state authority against legitimate political competition.

This is not business as usual. It is the use of coercive power to tilt the playing field.

In a healthy democracy, parties in power campaign, convince and compete. If they fail, they obstruct, intimidate, and manipulate.

The distinction matters.

*A democracy at risk*

Nigeria’s commitment to multi-party democracy is being tested. The right to freedom of association, peaceful assembly and political participation are not privileges granted at the discretion of those in power: they are constitutional guarantees.

When opposition parties cannot organize themselves freely, when courts become involved in internal party disputes that are contrary to the law, and when electoral institutions are perceived as biased, the very foundation of democratic choice is weakened.

The danger does not only concern opposition parties such as the African Democratic Congress. It is up to the Nigerian people, whose ability to choose their leaders depends on a level playing field.

*The urgent need for resistance and reform*

To stop this drift, urgent measures must be taken:

– The judiciary must respect jurisdictional limits and resist political capture

– The National Judicial Council must discipline erring judges

– The Nigerian Bar Association must enforce professional responsibility among lawyers

– The Independent National Electoral Commission must reaffirm its independence and neutrality

– Civil society and the international community must remain vigilant and make their voices heard

*Defending the democratic space*

The signals are unmistakable. Judicial complicity, executive power, and regulatory intimidation are converging in ways that threaten Nigeria’s democratic future.

The question is no longer whether these patterns exist, but whether they will be addressed.

Democracy is not self-sufficient. It survives only when institutions act with integrity and when citizens refuse to accept its erosion as normal.

Nigeria must choose: a democracy defined by competition and choice, or a democracy constrained by collusion and control.

The time to defend that choice is now.

Post views:
132