Judicial complicity, political collusion, and the shrinking democratic space in Nigeria
By Okechukwu Nwanguma
The warning by Victor Umeh that some judges are being used to undermine democracy is not an isolated alarm—it is part of a broader and deeply troubling pattern. When situated alongside recent actions targeting opposition activities, a clearer picture emerges: a systematic effort to constrict Nigeria’s multiparty democratic space through a combination of judicial overreach, executive pressure, and regulatory complicity.
At the center of this pattern are the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), whose actions—whether direct or indirect—are increasingly perceived as converging in ways that disadvantage opposition parties.
From Courtrooms to Convention Halls: A Pattern of Suppression
The controversy over judicial interference in party leadership disputes, despite clear provisions of the Electoral Act 2026, is one dimension of the problem. The willingness of some courts to entertain suits on internal party affairs—often accompanied by questionable interim orders—creates legal uncertainty and destabilizes opposition parties from within.
But the problem does not end in the courtroom.
Reports surrounding attempts to frustrate the convention of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) at the Rainbow Event Centre expose an even more direct form of political interference. Allegations that a private venue could face revocation of its licence simply for hosting an opposition gathering point to a dangerous abuse of state power.
If true, this represents a shift from covert manipulation to overt intimidation.
A political party that has fulfilled all contractual and legal obligations should not be strong-armed out of holding its convention. Such tactics—pressuring private businesses, obstructing lawful assembly, and creating artificial barriers—are hallmarks of democratic backsliding.
INEC’s Troubling Role
The role of Independent National Electoral Commission in this emerging pattern cannot be ignored. As the constitutionally mandated umpire, INEC is expected to act with strict neutrality. Yet, concerns are mounting about whether its actions—and in some cases, its silence—are enabling a climate where opposition parties are placed at a structural disadvantage.
From disputes over party leadership recognition to the handling of internal party processes, the perception of selective validation or intervention erodes trust. Even the appearance of bias is damaging enough; in electoral governance, credibility is everything.
When electoral bodies are seen as aligning, however subtly, with ruling party interests, the entire democratic process is called into question.
The Normalization of Democratic Erosion
What makes this moment particularly dangerous is not any single incident, but the cumulative effect of many.
As the Nigerian Bar Association rightly observed, democracy can be undermined through “disingenuous litigation, forum shopping, and malafide applications designed to secure undemocratic political advantage.” To this must now be added administrative intimidation and the misuse of regulatory powers to stifle opposition activities.
This is how democracies are dismantled—not always through coups or sweeping decrees, but through incremental, often deniable actions:
– A court that assumes jurisdiction where it has none
– A lawyer who files a politically motivated suit
– A regulatory threat against a venue hosting opposition
– An electoral body that fails to act decisively or impartially
Each act, taken alone, may appear minor. Together, they form a coordinated architecture of suppression.
Weaponizing State Power Against Political Competition
The reported targeting of a private event centre for hosting an opposition convention underscores a fundamental issue: the weaponization of state authority against legitimate political competition.
This is not politics as usual. It is the use of coercive power to tilt the playing field.
In a healthy democracy, ruling parties campaign, persuade, and compete. In a failing one, they obstruct, intimidate, and manipulate.
The distinction matters.
A Democracy at Risk
Nigeria’s commitment to multiparty 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 organise freely, when courts are drawn into internal party disputes contrary to law, and when electoral institutions are perceived as partial, the very foundation of democratic choice is weakened.
The danger is not just to opposition parties like the African Democratic Congress. It is to the Nigerian people, whose ability to choose their leaders depends on a level playing field.
The Urgent Need for Resistance and Reform
To halt this drift, urgent steps 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 accountability among lawyers
– Independent National Electoral Commission must reassert its independence and neutrality
– Civil society and the international community must remain vigilant and vocal
Defending the Democratic Space
The signs are unmistakable. Judicial complicity, executive overreach, 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 confronted.
Democracy is not self-sustaining. 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 one constrained by collusion and control.
The time to defend that choice is now.
Nwanguma, the executive director of RULAAC, writes from Lagos.
