By Ajisafe Akinyemi Gbenga
Nigeria’s democratic space has once again been animated by controversy—this time surrounding the leadership crisis within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and the subsequent actions of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Predictably, accusations have emerged, with critics alleging bias, interference, and political manipulation.
Yet beneath the noise lies a more fundamental issue—one that demands sober reflection rather than emotional reaction: Are we holding INEC accountable for a failure, or for fulfilling its legal obligation?
The Legal and Procedural Questions
The facts, as presented, raise troubling procedural and legal inconsistencies within the ADC itself.
First, the question of authority: if a National Chairman resigns, can he continue to act on behalf of the party days or weeks after that resignation? In principle, the answer is no. Once resignation takes effect, the authority attached to that office ceases, except where there is a clearly defined transitional arrangement. Any official correspondence made outside that framework inevitably raises questions about legitimacy.
Second, the issue of delayed communication. If, as claimed, a key party official resigned in May but the electoral body was only notified in July, such delay undermines the credibility of the process. Political parties are expected to maintain transparency and promptly communicate leadership changes to INEC. A two-month gap is not just a procedural lapse—it opens the door to suspicion, contradiction, and potential manipulation.
Third, the matter of succession. In most party constitutions, including those of major Nigerian political parties, the Deputy National Chairman assumes leadership in an acting capacity upon the resignation of the Chairman. If, at the time of the Chairman’s resignation, the Deputy had not formally stepped down, then the line of succession should have been clear and automatic.
These are not trivial technicalities. They go to the heart of organizational order, legal compliance, and institutional credibility.
INEC and the Limits of Its Role
It is important to restate a basic principle of electoral governance: INEC is not an arbitrator of internal party politics. Its role is administrative and regulatory, not discretionary.
The Commission acts based on:
Official communications from political parties
Party constitutions and established procedures
Binding court orders where disputes have been adjudicated
To expect INEC to go beyond these parameters is to invite arbitrariness into a system that is meant to be governed by law.
Indeed, a contradiction has emerged in the public discourse. If INEC had ignored the documents submitted to it or refused to comply with a court directive, it would have been accused of bias or dereliction.
Yet, by acting in accordance with its mandate, it now faces the same accusations.
This inconsistency suggests that the issue may not be INEC’s actions, but rather dissatisfaction with the outcomes those actions produced.
The Danger of Sentiment Over Substance
Democracy thrives on the rule of law, not on selective outrage. When legal processes are interpreted through the lens of political convenience, institutions are unfairly weakened and public trust is eroded.
The ADC leadership dispute is, by all indications, rooted in internal mismanagement—contradictions in communication, questionable timing, and procedural ambiguities. These are issues that should be addressed within the party framework or resolved through the courts, not projected onto INEC as institutional failure.
Young Nigerians, in particular, must resist the temptation to adopt narratives that prioritize sentiment over substance. Holding institutions accountable is essential—but such accountability must be grounded in facts, law, and consistency.
Conclusion
As Nigeria moves steadily toward another electoral cycle, the strength of its democracy will depend not just on the actions of its institutions, but on the fairness with which those actions are judged.
INEC’s responsibility is clear: to uphold the law, reflect legally recognized leadership structures, and maintain regulatory order. Political parties, on their part, must ensure internal coherence, transparency, and adherence to due process.
Democracy cannot function where the rule of law is applied selectively or discarded when inconvenient. If Nigeria is to make meaningful progress, both institutions and citizens must remain anchored in principle—not perception.
Exclusive Reporters 