There is something fundamentally wrong with the way politics is practiced in Nigeria. Our political environment has become increasingly intolerant, vindictive and driven by an unhealthy desperation to acquire and retain power. So much so that even institutions established to protect our democracy are increasingly being dragged into political battles. The unfolding crisis in the African Democratic Congress (ADC), particularly the controversy surrounding the David Mark-led National Working Committee and the uncertainty surrounding Alhaji Atiku Abubakar’s presidential ambition, is another troubling illustration of this reality.
By Shu’aibu Usman Leman
There is something fundamentally wrong with the way politics is practiced in Nigeria. Our political environment has become increasingly intolerant, vindictive and driven by an unhealthy desperation to acquire and retain power. So much so that even institutions established to protect our democracy are increasingly being dragged into political battles. The unfolding crisis in the African Democratic Congress (ADC), particularly the controversy surrounding the David Mark-led National Working Committee and the uncertainty surrounding Alhaji Atiku Abubakar’s presidential ambition, is another troubling illustration of this reality. The conflicting court pronouncements over the party’s leadership have understandably generated considerable concern. However, while it is convenient to blame everything on political intolerance, judicial interference and the alleged manipulation of state institutions, an honest assessment requires us to look beyond these explanations and examine the actions and political calculations of the principal actors themselves.
In particular, we cannot ignore the manner in which Atiku Abubakar and his political associates moved into the ADC and sought to reposition it as a major platform for their political ambitions. The apparent haste with which this political realignment was undertaken, and the urgency to assume control of the party’s structures, raise legitimate questions about whether sufficient consideration was given to existing arrangements, established procedures and the interests of longstanding party members. Their calculations may have been driven by the need to establish a viable political platform ahead of the next electoral cycle, but political expediency should never take precedence over institutional integrity. Indeed, the manner in which Atiku and his associates approached the ADC may have contributed significantly to the internal disagreements and leadership struggles that have now plunged the party into crisis.
Democracy is not simply about finding a political platform through which to pursue personal or collective ambitions. It is equally about respecting the institutions, rules, structures and people that sustain that platform. A political party is not an empty vessel that influential politicians can simply appropriate, restructure and redirect at will, irrespective of its history, constitution, existing leadership and membership. The right to join a political party does not automatically confer the right to determine its leadership or take control of its structures without due regard for established procedures. Political influence, financial resources and national prominence cannot substitute for internal democracy, consultation and consensus-building.
Atiku Abubakar is an experienced politician who has occupied prominent positions in Nigeria’s political landscape. His decision to pursue his political ambition through the ADC, alongside other prominent political figures, is entirely within his democratic rights. However, those rights must be balanced against the legitimate interests of people who have been part of the party long before the arrival of its new political heavyweights. Were adequate consultations undertaken with existing stakeholders? Were the party’s constitutional provisions and internal democratic procedures sufficiently respected? Were longstanding members adequately accommodated in the process? These are legitimate questions that cannot simply be dismissed as attempts to undermine Atiku’s ambition or frustrate the emergence of a formidable opposition coalition.
READ ALSO:
Mr. President, Nigeria’s hunger crisis demands an honest assessment
One recurring problem with Nigerian politics is that influential politicians frequently approach political parties as vehicles for personal ambition rather than democratic institutions with their own histories, structures and constituencies. When powerful individuals arrive with their political calculations, supporters and expectations, existing party members can easily feel displaced, marginalised or treated as inconsequential. Without adequate consultation and accommodation, such resentment can quickly develop into factional disputes, leadership struggles and prolonged litigation. Political impatience, therefore, can be just as damaging to democratic institutions as political intolerance and external interference.
This is not an unfamiliar feature of Nigerian politics. Politicians frequently abandon one political platform in search of another, often citing internal disagreements, exclusion or the absence of a conducive environment for pursuing their ambitions. Yet, upon arriving at their new destinations, some appear unwilling to appreciate the institutional complexities and competing interests within those organisations. Rather than investing time in building consensus and strengthening existing structures, they sometimes seek to accelerate political arrangements in ways that generate fresh disagreements. The ADC experience raises an important question about whether the urgency to establish a platform for the 2027 presidential contest was allowed to overshadow the more fundamental task of building a sustainable and genuinely democratic political organisation.
However, it would be unfair to place the entire responsibility for the present crisis on Atiku and his associates. Those who occupied leadership positions in the ADC before the recent political realignment also have a responsibility to demonstrate flexibility, maturity and a willingness to accommodate new political forces. Political parties cannot expect to expand their influence without making room for new members, fresh ideas and competing interests. The challenge is to achieve such expansion without sacrificing institutional identity, constitutional provisions and the legitimate rights of existing members. The responsibility for resolving the present crisis must therefore be shared by all those whose decisions and actions have contributed to the situation.
Against this background, the conflicting judicial pronouncements concerning the ADC leadership crisis are particularly troubling. The apparent divergence between the decisions of two judges of the same Federal High Court, one of which recognises the Mark-led leadership while another questions its legitimacy and nullifies decisions taken under its authority, including processes relating to Atiku’s nomination, raises serious questions about consistency and public confidence in the administration of justice. How can the same judicial system produce apparently conflicting conclusions on an issue with such enormous political implications? What are Nigerians expected to make of a situation in which the legal legitimacy of a political party’s leadership appears to depend on which courtroom one approaches?
When the law appears to speak with different voices, public confidence in the judiciary inevitably suffers. More seriously, when judicial pronouncements become central to political struggles, the institution entrusted with protecting our democracy risks becoming a casualty of the politics it is supposed to regulate. The judiciary must never become an arena in which political actors seek to accomplish through litigation what they have been unable to achieve through persuasion, negotiation or legitimate internal democratic processes. Judges must also recognise that their decisions, particularly in politically sensitive matters, carry consequences beyond the immediate parties before them. Judicial independence is not merely about the freedom of judges to make decisions; it is also about maintaining public confidence that those decisions are firmly grounded in the law and free from political considerations.
This is not to suggest that politicians should be denied access to the courts when their rights have been violated or when genuine legal disputes arise. Far from it. The right to seek judicial redress is fundamental to any functioning democracy. The courts exist to interpret the law, resolve disputes and protect the rights of individuals and institutions. However, there is a fundamental difference between seeking justice and exploiting judicial processes as instruments of political advantage. That distinction is becoming increasingly blurred in our political environment, with potentially damaging consequences for democratic institutions. Politicians must understand that litigation cannot become a convenient substitute for responsible political engagement, respect for party constitutions and a willingness to resolve internal disagreements through established mechanisms.
But we must not make the mistake of treating the ADC controversy merely as a judicial problem. Our deeper crisis lies in the political culture we have nurtured over the years. We have gradually transformed politics into warfare, where opponents are no longer regarded as fellow citizens with differing opinions or alternative visions for the country, but as enemies whose political existence must be extinguished. Elections are no longer approached primarily as opportunities to debate ideas, present programmes and earn the confidence of the electorate. Instead, they increasingly resemble battles in which victory must be secured at all costs, regardless of the consequences for democratic institutions, national cohesion and public trust.
This mentality has also infected the internal administration of our political parties. Rather than functioning as democratic platforms where members can freely debate, compete for leadership positions and collectively determine their political direction, many of our parties increasingly resemble private establishments controlled by powerful individuals and competing factions. Party constitutions are respected when convenient and ignored when they become obstacles to personal ambition. Internal disagreements that should ordinarily be resolved through dialogue, negotiation and established party procedures are allowed to degenerate into prolonged legal battles. The result is a political environment in which loyalty to individuals often takes precedence over loyalty to institutions, while personal ambition is elevated above collective responsibility.
One of the greatest contradictions of Nigerian politics is that many political leaders profess unwavering commitment to democracy but appear unwilling to practice it within their own organisations. They demand internal democracy when seeking leadership positions but become less enthusiastic about the same principles when confronted with opposition from within their parties. Some are prepared to defend the rights of party members when those rights advance their political interests, yet conveniently disregard established procedures when such rules become inconvenient. This selective commitment to democratic principles is one reason political parties struggle to develop strong institutions capable of surviving beyond the influence of their most prominent members.
When political parties become unwilling or incapable of managing their internal affairs democratically, the courts inevitably become the destination for aggrieved factions. Rival groups rush to secure favourable orders, counter-orders and injunctions, while party members and supporters are left confused about who actually has the authority to speak for their organisations. In the process, the judiciary is burdened with disputes that should, in the first instance, have been resolved through credible internal democratic mechanisms. The ADC crisis is another reminder that political organisations cannot build sustainable institutions on the foundations of personal ambition, hurried arrangements and unresolved grievances.
There is also a broader democratic implication that deserves serious attention. A credible opposition is not a favour granted by the ruling party; it is an essential component of democratic governance. Opposition parties provide alternative policies, scrutinize government decisions, expose failures and offer voters a meaningful choice. When opposition parties are weakened by internal manipulation, leadership struggles, political impatience or questionable institutional interventions, democracy itself suffers. The ultimate casualty is not necessarily Atiku Abubakar, David Mark or any other political leader, but the Nigerian electorate, whose political choices become increasingly restricted.
This is why the ADC crisis should concern Nigerians beyond the immediate political interests of the individuals involved. The issue is bigger than the fortunes of one political party or the presidential ambitions of particular politicians. It raises fundamental questions about whether political organisations can operate independently, whether their members can freely determine their leadership and whether those seeking to lead the country are prepared to respect the democratic principles they publicly profess. It is difficult to build a credible national democratic culture when the political organisations expected to sustain that culture are themselves struggling with questions of internal democracy, accountability and institutional legitimacy.
The way forward requires honesty and restraint from all concerned. Atiku and his associates must appreciate that political prominence does not confer an entitlement to control a party’s structures. Building a viable political platform requires patience, consultation and respect for existing institutions. The leadership and longstanding stakeholders of the ADC must equally recognise that political expansion requires accommodation, negotiation and a willingness to embrace new political realities. Neither side can reasonably expect to build a credible opposition platform while treating the legitimate concerns of the other as an inconvenience. David Mark and other party leaders must also demonstrate that their authority rests on transparent, constitutionally recognised and democratically defensible procedures.
Similarly, the judiciary must be allowed to dispense justice without fear or favour, political pressure or partisan considerations. Where conflicting judicial pronouncements arise, the judicial system must provide clear and timely mechanisms for resolving them. Political parties must learn to respect their constitutions, internal democratic processes and the decisions of their duly constituted organs. Politicians must also understand that losing an internal contest or failing to secure a preferred political arrangement does not mark the end of their political existence. One of the greatest tests of democratic maturity is the ability to tolerate opposition, accommodate dissent and accept outcomes that do not always favour one’s interests.
We must therefore resist the temptation to reduce the ADC controversy to a simplistic narrative of political persecution or judicial manipulation. While allegations of political interference deserve serious scrutiny, it is equally important to interrogate the conduct, decisions and political calculations of those whose actions helped create the circumstances now threatening the party’s stability. Democracy requires accountability from everyone, irrespective of political influence, ambition or position. It cannot be defended selectively, nor can its principles be suspended simply because their observance threatens the immediate interests of influential political actors.
Politics should be about service, not warfare. Political parties should be platforms for competing ideas, not private empires controlled by individuals and their personal interests. Courts should be places where justice is determined by the law, not arenas where political fortunes are negotiated. Most importantly, political parties must understand that building a credible opposition requires considerably more than assembling prominent politicians around a common presidential ambition. It requires strong institutions, internal democracy, mutual respect, patience and a willingness to subordinate individual interests to collective objectives.
The ADC controversy should therefore be more than another episode in Nigeria’s seemingly endless political drama. It should compel us to reflect seriously on the kind of democracy we are building and the dangerous precedents we are setting. If political parties cannot resolve their internal disagreements without turning every dispute into a legal battle, and if politicians increasingly regard the courts as alternative routes to political victory, then we must ask ourselves whether we are genuinely committed to democratic competition or merely interested in finding increasingly sophisticated ways to circumvent it.
Nigeria must move beyond this politics of bitterness, exclusion and institutional manipulation. We must recognise that political opponents are not enemies to be eliminated, but fellow Nigerians with whom we must share a country and a common future. No political ambition, however legitimate, is worth sacrificing the credibility of our institutions or the stability of our democracy. Equally, no political party or individual should be allowed to appropriate the democratic space as though it were a personal inheritance. Political influence must never become a licence to disregard established procedures, just as the protection of existing party structures must never become an excuse for excluding legitimate new interests.
Nigeria is bigger than any political party. It is bigger than any other political leader. It is also bigger than the ambitions of those who believe that political power justifies every conceivable means of acquiring it. Democracy is not about who can manipulate the system to secure victory; it is about who can persuade the people to entrust them with power while respecting the rules and institutions that make such a choice meaningful.
The real danger confronting Nigeria is not simply that politicians are fighting over the leadership of political parties or that rival factions are seeking judicial intervention. It is that we are gradually normalising a political culture in which institutions are valued only when they serve particular interests. Today, one faction celebrates a favourable judgement while another condemns it. Tomorrow, their positions may be reversed. Yet the damage to public confidence in our institutions remains. We must therefore look beyond who wins or loses the present ADC legal battle and ask what happens to our democracy when political actors lose faith in democratic processes and begin to regard every institution as another instrument for securing power.
Let the courts dispense justice. Let political parties respect their constitutions. Let newcomers respect existing structures, and let established party members embrace legitimate political expansion. Let political leaders learn that ambition must be tempered by patience, consultation and respect for democratic institutions. And, ultimately, let the Nigerian people decide who governs them.
That is the essence of democracy. Anything short of it is a dangerous distortion of the very system we claim to defend.
