By Moshood Oshunfurewa
Lagos, Nigeria
[email protected] | 08035936663
Nigeria's democracy is not dying loudly. There are no soldiers on the streets, no formal suspension of the constitution. But beneath the surface of our democratic rituals, the institutions that ought to safeguard the will of the people are being tested in ways that demand careful scrutiny. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), once the beacon of electoral hope, now finds itself increasingly questioned for overbearing conduct that stretches beyond its constitutional boundaries. And when the judiciary, the supposed last refuge of the common man, intervenes to correct an electoral body that has wandered from its mandate, one must ask: can Nigerian democracy still breathe under the leadership of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu?
The recent judgment delivered by Justice M.G. Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026, is not merely a legal ruling. It is a judicial correction of an electoral body that had begun to act as both umpire and legislator. The court, in a measured decision, nullified provisions of INEC's revised guidelines that required political parties to submit their membership registers at least 21 days before primary elections. It went further to exempt primary elections for the substitution of candidates from INEC's compressed timeline, effectively reminding the commission that parties must retain autonomy over their internal democratic processes. Fresh registers can now be submitted, and aspirants placed on them can contest substitution elections — not as an act of chaos, but as a restoration of the parties' right to determine their own candidates within reasonable bounds.
The judgment did not stop there. The court nullified INEC's revised timetable for primary elections, declaring that the electoral body cannot impose dates for what it termed "internal party affairs." It restrained INEC from reducing the time within which parties must submit the particulars of their nominated candidates. It checked INEC's authority to compress the timeline for substitution of candidates. And it ruled that INEC cannot publish the final list of candidates outside the minimum 60-day window. In one fell swoop, the court reminded INEC that regulatory power is not the same as omnipotence, that the commission's mandate to supervise does not translate into a licence to control.
Let us be clear about what the Constitution says. Section 78 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, grants INEC the power to organise, undertake, and supervise all elections. Section 228 empowers INEC to monitor the organisation and operation of political parties, including their finances. But supervision is not substitution. Monitoring is not micromanagement. The Constitution did not delegate to INEC the power to write the rulebook for party primaries, nor did it intend for the commission to become the de facto governing board of political parties. INEC was designed as an independent regulator, insulated from political interference, precisely because the framers of our Constitution understood that an electoral body must be neutral, not neutral in the sense of passivity, but neutral in the sense of staying within its lane.
But here we are, watching as INEC, rather than reinforcing its own independence through measured conduct, has overreached into domains that belong to political parties and the legislature. And here lies the tragedy: if INEC continues to overbear, and the judiciary is left to correct it, what does it say about the commission's understanding of its own mandate?
The concern is not abstract. Within the view of INEC as an institution, the appointment of its head has become a subject of legitimate public scrutiny. Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan (SAN), the current INEC chairman, has been exposed through his own social media presence as a loyalist of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. His tweet handle, far from projecting the neutrality expected of an umpire, has revealed political affinities that cast a long shadow over the commission's impartiality. When the referee is seen consulting the playbook of one of the teams, the game loses credibility before the first whistle blows. This is not a personal attack on the professor's character; it is an institutional observation about the erosion of public trust. An electoral commission that is perceived as an extension of the ruling party cannot organise elections that the losing side will accept. And without acceptance, there is no democracy, only a countdown to crisis.
The former Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon, has held firm to the belief that Nigeria will not fall or break apart, despite mounting political, economic, and security pressures. His autobiography is a testament to resilience, to the idea that this country, for all its fractures, possesses an enduring will to survive. But resilience is not immunity. If INEC continues to overbear and undermine the very democratic processes it was created to facilitate, Gowon's faith may one day be tested beyond its limits. A nation can endure poverty. It can endure insecurity. But it cannot endure the collapse of its electoral legitimacy indefinitely. When citizens no longer believe that the institutions managing their elections are fair arbiters, they will seek other means to express their grievances. History, both ours and that of other nations, has shown where that road leads.
Under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Nigeria faces a defining moment. The President has spoken often of his commitment to democratic consolidation. But democracy is not consolidated through executive control of institutions; it is consolidated through institutions that function within their constitutional boundaries. The President's silence on INEC's overreach, or worse, his perceived complicity in the commission's overbearing conduct, will be remembered as the moment when Nigeria's democratic breath grew shallow. A president who truly believes in democracy does not need a pliant electoral commission that does his bidding. He needs one that respects its own limits, one that can look the political parties in the eye and say, "With respect, the Constitution says otherwise."
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Nigeria's democracy is at a crossroads. The path we choose in the coming months will determine whether 2027 is remembered as an election or a selection. If INEC is reduced to an overbearing regulator that parties cannot trust, if the judiciary fails to correct such overreach, and if the executive continues to treat democratic institutions as instruments of control rather than pillars of impartiality. The breath of Nigerian democracy is already laboured. Whether it survives depends not on the resilience of our geography or the size of our population, but on the willingness of our institutions to stay within their lanes and the integrity of those who lead them.
Post a Comment