By kogi state IPAC
I am not a lawyer. However, I can read, write, reason, and understand. One does not need to wear a wig and gown before understanding the Constitution of Nigeria or the constitution of a political party. The law is not the exclusive property of lawyers. Every citizen has the right to study, interrogate, and express informed opinions on matters that affect our democracy and national existence.
Nigeria has unfortunately become a nation where one crisis barely ends before another emerges. Just as citizens struggle to cope with economic hardship, insecurity, and declining public confidence in government institutions, another development has surfaced that raises serious concerns about the future of democracy in our country.
The yesterday’s judgment of the Federal High Court directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister several political parties, including Accord, ADC, APP, AA, and ZLP, deserves careful scrutiny beyond the headlines and legal technicalities.
The issue is not whether political parties can be deregistered. The Constitution already provides circumstances under which such action may be taken. The real question is whether a court can compel INEC to carry out such a drastic action at the instance of private individuals or groups, especially where INEC itself has not made any official determination that the affected parties have violated constitutional requirements.
The Constitution assigns INEC the responsibility of supervising political parties and determining whether they have complied with relevant electoral provisions. That responsibility was not given to pressure groups, private organizations, or interested political actors. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask whether the court has effectively stepped into the shoes of INEC and assumed powers that the Constitution reserved for the electoral commission.
This concern becomes even more important when it is evident that some of the affected political parties may not have violated the constitutional conditions being cited as justification for their deregistration. If there is uncertainty regarding compliance, should the primary assessment not come from INEC itself before any judicial intervention?
Equally troubling is the question of who initiated the suit. Public information indicates that the action was filed by an association of former legislators. This raises a fundamental issue: what direct injury or legal damage did these individuals suffer as a result of INEC’s alleged failure to deregister political parties?
For decades, Nigerian courts have maintained that a person approaching the court must demonstrate sufficient legal interest in the matter. Mere political disagreement, personal opinion, civic enthusiasm, or dissatisfaction with government actions does not automatically confer legal standing. This is a jurisdictional issue that should never be treated lightly.
Beyond the legal questions lies an even more dangerous political reality.
Many Nigerians are beginning to observe a disturbing pattern in our democratic journey. Opposition parties are being weakened from multiple directions. Defections are being encouraged and celebrated. Political intimidation is becoming more sophisticated. Institutions that ought to serve as neutral umpires are increasingly perceived as instruments for achieving predetermined political outcomes.
Whether real or perceived, this growing sentiment poses a grave threat to democratic stability.
Democracy flourishes when there are strong and vibrant opposition parties. Democracy dies when opposition voices are systematically weakened, silenced, intimidated, or eliminated. The strength of a democracy is not measured by the dominance of the ruling party but by the freedom and capacity of opposing voices to compete fairly.
History offers valuable lessons.
Nations that gradually drifted toward one-party dominance often began by weakening opposition structures under seemingly lawful and constitutional processes. Over time, dissent became difficult, political competition disappeared, and democratic institutions became mere formalities.
Nigeria must never travel that dangerous road.
The existence of multiple political parties is not a problem, it is one of the essential safeguards of democracy. Political parties provide alternatives, stimulate debate, deepen accountability, and ensure that power remains answerable to the people.
Any action, whether judicial, administrative, or political, that significantly narrows the democratic space should be approached with utmost caution.
What makes the current situation particularly worrying is the broader political environment in which it is occurring. There is a growing perception that the APC-led Federal Government is pursuing a strategy aimed at consolidating political power while steadily reducing the effectiveness of opposition platforms.
Across the country, opposition politicians are being absorbed into the ruling party at an unprecedented rate. Political structures are being weakened. Institutions that should remain independent are increasingly viewed with suspicion. The result is a political climate where many citizens now fear that Nigeria is slowly drifting toward a de facto one-party state.
A one-party state may appear attractive to those who currently hold power, but history teaches that it is ultimately dangerous for both the rulers and the ruled. Without strong opposition, governments become less accountable. Without political competition, arrogance replaces service. Without alternative voices, mistakes go unchallenged and abuses go unchecked.
What we are witnessing today increasingly resembles what may be described as a “dictatorial democracy” a system where democratic institutions and processes continue to exist on paper, elections are conducted, and courts sit in session, yet the practical space for genuine political competition becomes progressively restricted.
Such a situation should concern every Nigerian, regardless of political affiliation.
The issue before us is therefore bigger than the fate of a few political parties. It is about the future character of Nigerian democracy. It is about whether constitutional institutions will remain independent. It is about whether political plurality will survive. Most importantly, it is about whether future generations will inherit a democracy that encourages competition of ideas or one that permits only one dominant political voice.
As this matter progresses through the appellate courts, important questions will require clear answers.
Can INEC be compelled by third parties to exercise a constitutional power that the Commission itself has not activated?
Do private organizations possess the legal standing to seek such orders?
Can courts direct the exercise of constitutional responsibilities that are primarily entrusted to independent institutions?
And most importantly, where should the line be drawn between judicial oversight and institutional interference?
These are questions that go beyond legal theory. They strike at the very heart of constitutional democracy.
My concern is not merely about the deregistration of political parties. My concern is about the gradual contraction of democratic space in Nigeria. If care is not taken, today’s judicial intervention may become tomorrow’s political weapon.
Democracy survives through competition, tolerance, plurality, and respect for differing political opinions. Once those pillars are weakened, democracy may continue in name while disappearing in substance.
Nigeria must never become a nation where opposition is treated as an inconvenience rather than a democratic necessity.
The time has come for all lovers of democracy to speak up, remain vigilant, and defend the principles upon which genuine democratic governance rests.This version is structured as a political commentary rather than a legal essay, making it easier for the general public to read while retaining the constitutional arguments and strengthening the warning against one-party dominance and democratic backsliding.