Nigeria’s democracy faces a defining test following the Federal High Court’s nullification of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) leadership associated with former Senate President David Mark and decisions taken under that leadership, including the presidential nomination of former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar.
The judgment has reopened urgent questions about judicial independence, party autonomy and the fairness of Nigeria’s political landscape ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The issue is not whether political parties must obey the law; they must. The deeper question is whether the law is being applied in ways that strengthen constitutional democracy or unintentionally narrow the choices available to citizens.
Courts have a legitimate duty to interpret party constitutions, electoral laws and constitutional provisions. Yet, when a ruling removes an opposition party’s leadership and invalidates its presidential nomination close to a general election, citizens are entitled to ask whether the remedy is proportionate and whether the process is demonstrably impartial.
The ADC case is particularly sensitive because an earlier Federal High Court judgment in July 2026 had upheld the Mark-led leadership and dismissed a challenge to it. The ADC and Atiku contend that the subsequent ruling conflicts with that earlier decision and have indicated their intention to appeal.
Conflicting judicial outcomes do not, in themselves, prove political interference. Courts may differ on jurisdiction, standing, evidence or internal dispute-resolution requirements. However, in a matter of such political consequence, inconsistent outcomes can erode public confidence unless the reasoning is transparent, coherent and demonstrably anchored in law. Judicial authority rests not only on constitutional power but also on public trust in impartiality.
Christian Ethics and Public Power
From a Christian public theology perspective, political authority is a trust, not a possession. Government exists to pursue justice, protect the vulnerable and promote the common good.
Reinhold Niebuhr’s insight remains instructive: humanity’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, while its inclination towards injustice makes democracy necessary.
Christian ethics therefore demands that those who hold power exercise it with humility, restraint and accountability. It rejects the use of public institutions to secure partisan advantage, just as it rejects lawlessness by opposition parties. Justice must be impartial: the same legal standards should apply to ruling-party structures and opposition structures alike.
This perspective also affirms human dignity and freedom. Citizens are not subjects to be managed; they are moral agents entitled to associate, deliberate, dissent and choose their leaders. A political order that suppresses lawful competition diminishes the dignity of the very people it claims to serve.
Constitutional Foundations
Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees every Nigerian the right to assemble freely and associate with others, including the right to form or belong to a political party. Section 223 establishes constitutional requirements for the democratic organisation of political parties.
These provisions impose reciprocal duties. Political parties must practise internal democracy, respect their constitutions and conduct credible processes. The state, in turn, must protect citizens’ rights to organise and compete politically without arbitrary obstruction.
If the ADC leadership violated its constitution or electoral laws, the courts may properly rule against it. However, a remedy that invalidates not only a leadership structure but also the political participation of members, aspirants and voters requires careful justification. Legality alone is not enough; the democratic consequences of a legal remedy also matter.
The Danger of a Tilted Political Field
Levitsky and Way describe competitive authoritarianism as a system in which elections and democratic institutions formally exist, but incumbents enjoy a decisive advantage through their control or influence over state institutions and resources.
It would be premature to classify Nigeria as an electoral authoritarian state. The country retains courts, political parties, elections, civil society and an active public sphere. However, the existence of institutions alone does not guarantee democracy.
The decisive test is whether these institutions operate independently and provide comparable protection to all political actors.
The standard is straightforward: if a ruling-party structure breaches the law, it should face the same scrutiny as an opposition structure. If opposition leaders breach internal rules, they must also be held accountable. Selective justice, whether real or perceived, is among the most corrosive threats to democratic trust.
Is the APC Afraid of 2027?
Whether the ruling All Progressives Congress is afraid of losing the 2027 elections cannot be established through inference.
Allegations of manipulation require credible evidence, not merely the fact that a court decision benefits the governing party.
Nevertheless, a confident government should welcome vigorous political competition. Nigerians are grappling with inflation, insecurity, unemployment and a severe cost-of-living crisis. These realities will shape electoral decisions more than legal technicalities.
A government secure in its record should defend it through service delivery, persuasion and open debate, not through outcomes that citizens may interpret as narrowing political alternatives.
Opposition cooperation is not a threat to democracy. It is a normal feature of democratic competition. Political parties may form alliances and seek voters’ support, provided they operate within the law. The proper response to a stronger opposition is better governance, not a shrinking political space.
The 2027 elections will reveal whether Nigerian democracy rests on genuine political equality or merely formal procedures. INEC must act neutrally; the judiciary must resolve disputes coherently and without unnecessary delay; security agencies must protect all political actors equally; and political parties must respect internal democracy.
Citizens must also reject violence, vote-buying, intimidation and misinformation. Democracy belongs neither to the ruling party nor to opposition elites. It belongs to the Nigerian people.
The ADC judgment must be respected unless it is lawfully overturned. However, respect for the law must coexist with vigilance: the law should serve as a shield for political freedom, not a weapon against it.
Nigeria needs a democracy in which every political party has a fair chance to win, every citizen has a meaningful choice, and every vote genuinely matters.
Acknowledgement
The author gratefully acknowledges Lawan Musa Danladi for his intellectual encouragement and commitment to democratic discourse, as reflected in his article.
About the Author
Cliff Stanley is a political scientist and public theologian based in Jos, and writes from ECWA Theological Seminary, Jos (JETS).
Email: Cliffstanley3@gmail.com
Phone: 07032826319
