•Olalekan Festus Ojo, Esq
Olalekan Festus Ojo is a Lagos-based human rights lawyer and public affairs commentator. He is a strong advocate of social justice and the Managing Partner, Platinum & Taylor Hill LP, a leading law firm in Nigeria. In this interview, he airs his view on the raging controversy over the removal of the names of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) leaders from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) portal, among other related issues, reports Sunday Independent.
Excerpts:
What is your take on the removal of names of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) Chairman, David Mark, and the National Secretary, Rauf Aregbesola, from the INEC portal based on the Appeal Court ruling?
My view is that the action of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) must be situated within a broader effort to avoid institutional complicity in a disputed leadership structure. The ruling of the Court of Appeal Nigeria did not conclusively settle the leadership question within the African Democratic Congress (ADC), and in such circumstances, INEC is expected to act with restraint. However, while the removal of ADC leaders’ names from the INEC portal may be justified as a precautionary measure, it also raises a fundamental legal concern: whether INEC acted strictly within the confines of the Court’s directive or ventured into interpretative territory.
This is important because regulatory bodies must avoid the temptation of filling perceived judicial gaps with administrative action. So, while the intention may be defensible, the execution invites scrutiny.
Would you say the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was fair in its action when the Appeal Court did not specifically order the removal of ADC’s Leaders’ names from its portal?
Fairness, in this instance, is not absolute. On one hand, INEC’s decision reflects an attempt to maintain neutrality and avoid recognising any faction prematurely.
On the other hand, the absence of a specific directive from the court makes the action appear proactive to a fault.
In law, institutions are generally expected to act on clear mandates, not inferred intentions. By removing the names, INEC may have created the impression of administrative overreach, even if that was not its intention. Therefore, while the Commission may argue that it acted prudently, the perception of fairness is weakened by the lack of explicit judicial backing.
Many lawyers have tried to interpret what is ‘status quo ante bellum’ in the ADC case at the Appeal Court. What do you think is the right interpretation?
‘Status quo ante bellum’ is a legal doctrine that simply means restoring parties to the position they occupied before the dispute arose. However, in political party disputes, the real difficulty lies in identifying that uncontested point.
In the ADC situation, the proper interpretation should be the last legally recognised and undisputed leadership structure before the crisis escalated. Anything short of that introduces subjectivity and allows factions to manipulate the narrative. This is why courts must be precise when invoking such doctrines, as ambiguity often leads to further litigation, rather than resolution.
The ADC has asked for the resignation of INEC Chairman even as it has said that it is going ahead with its Congresses and Convention with or without the presence of INEC. What do you think is the proper thing for the party to do bearing in mind the INEC schedule for the elections?
The position taken by the African Democratic Congress (ADC); calling for the resignation of the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission while simultaneously indicating its intention to proceed with congresses and a convention without INEC, raises serious legal and strategic concerns. On the demand for resignation, while political parties are entitled to express dissatisfaction with regulatory bodies, such calls must be grounded in clear legal breaches or misconduct. Otherwise, they risk being perceived as reactionary or politically motivated, which may weaken the party’s credibility, rather than strengthen its position. That position is legally risky and strategically unwise. Electoral law in Nigeria requires a level of oversight or recognition by INEC for party processes to carry legal validity. Proceeding without the Commission may produce outcomes that are ultimately declared null and void.
The more prudent course for the ADC is to prioritise dispute resolution, either through the courts or internal reconciliation mechanisms. Political parties must understand that legitimacy is not just about internal consensus, but also about regulatory compliance. Any process conducted outside that framework is fundamentally defective. In conclusion, while the party’s frustrations may be understandable, defiance is not a viable legal strategy.
The path forward lies in lawful resolution, institutional engagement, and strategic discipline, failing which the ADC risks deepening its crisis and undermining its electoral prospects.
What is your take on the recent visit of President Bola Timubu to Plateau State to commiserate with victims of terror attacks and only stopped at the airport?
The visit by Bola Ahmed Tinubu to Plateau State, particularly stopping at the airport, carries symbolic weight, but falls short of what many Nigerians would consider adequate in the face of tragedy. In moments of national grief, leadership is expected to demonstrate not just presence, but proximity and empathy. Engaging directly with victims and affected communities sends a stronger message of solidarity. Beyond symbolism, what Nigerians ultimately seek are decisive actions and sustainable security strategies to prevent recurrence
How do you see the fear in some quarters that the APC wants to muscle the opposition to the extent that President Bola Tinubu will be the only eligible candidate?
The concern that the All Progressives Congress (APC) may be attempting to “muscle” the opposition to the point where only Bola Ahmed Tinubu becomes the dominant or unchallenged candidate is a serious allegation that touches the very foundation of democratic competition. However, it must be approached with a careful balance of legal reality, political structure, and empirical observation.
From a constitutional standpoint, Nigeria’s democracy is built on a multi-party framework guaranteed under the Constitution, and no party, ruling or opposition, has the legal capacity to eliminate competition. Eligibility to contest elections is determined by constitutional and electoral requirements administered by the Independent National Electoral Commission, not by political dominance.
That said, concerns of political “muscle flexing” often arise in environments where opposition parties are fragmented, internally weak, or structurally unstable. In such contexts, the perception of dominance may emerge not necessarily from suppression, but from the inability of opposition parties to present cohesive leadership, credible candidates, and strong national structures.
It is also important to distinguish between political advantage and institutional suppression. Every ruling party naturally enjoys certain advantages, visibility, access to state resources within legal limits, and incumbency influence.
However, these advantages do not automatically translate into exclusion of opposition voices unless democratic institutions fail in their regulatory role. If Nigeria’s democracy is to remain healthy, the responsibility does not rest solely on the ruling party.
The opposition must also reorganise, unify, and strengthen its internal democratic processes. Without this, perceptions of domination will persist regardless of intent.
How do you see the renewed call by certain groups for former President Goodluck Jonathan to contest the 2027 presidential election?
The renewed calls for the return of Goodluck Jonathan to contest the 2027 presidential election should be viewed through three main lenses: democratic maturity, political nostalgia, and systemic performance of Nigeria’s current leadership class. First, from a democratic standpoint, it is perfectly legitimate in an open system for citizens and groups to advocate for any qualified individual to seek office.
Nigeria’s Constitution does not preclude a former President from being called upon to re-enter the race, provided eligibility requirements are met. In that sense, the discussion is legally permissible and politically normal.
However, the deeper question is what this renewed agitation represents. In many cases, such calls reflect political nostalgia and dissatisfaction with current governance outcomes, rather than a structured national consensus on leadership direction. When societies repeatedly return to former leaders as potential solutions, it may indicate a perceived deficit in leadership renewal and institutional trust.
That said, Goodluck Jonathan himself represents a unique figure in Nigeria’s democratic history, particularly because of his widely acknowledged acceptance of electoral defeat in 2015, which strengthened Nigeria’s democratic credentials. This legacy continues to shape public perception of him as a stabilising and non-confrontational political actor.
Nevertheless, leadership in 2027, if it is to be meaningful, must go beyond personality debates. Nigeria’s challenges today are more structural than symbolic: insecurity, fiscal pressures, unemployment, and institutional weakness. Therefore, the central issue should not be who returns, but what new governance architecture is being proposed. There is also the risk that excessive focus on former leaders may crowd out emerging political talents, thereby weakening democratic renewal. A healthy democracy must balance experience with innovation.
Would you say the PDP as it stands today can really make an impact in the coming election?
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) still has a nationwide presence, but its internal divisions significantly weaken its chances. Without unity and a clear ideological direction, its impact will be limited. To remain competitive, the party must resolve its internal conflicts and present a credible and coherent alternative to the electorate.
What advice would you give to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in the handling of the coming elections now that the opposition seems not to trust its leadership?
The increasing lack of trust in the leadership of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) by parts of the opposition presents a serious challenge to the credibility of Nigeria’s electoral process.
Restoring confidence requires deliberate institutional discipline and consistent conduct by the Commission. First, INEC must embrace radical transparency, ensuring that all key electoral and administrative decisions are clearly explained to prevent misinformation and suspicion, especially in politically sensitive matters.
Second, the Commission must ensure strict consistency in applying electoral laws and guidelines. Any perception of selective enforcement undermines legitimacy and fuels political distrust.
Third, INEC must exercise judicial restraint, acting only on clear and explicit court orders rather than broad or implied interpretations. This is critical to maintaining the boundary between administrative duty and judicial authority.
Fourth, the Commission should strengthen stakeholder engagement, including regular dialogue with political parties, civil society groups, and observers. Open communication helps prevent misunderstandings and reduces unnecessary political tension. Electoral trust is built long before election-day.
For INEC to successfully manage the coming elections, it must operate on the principles of transparency, consistency, restraint, and continuous engagement. Upholding these standards will strengthen public confidence and enhance the legitimacy of the entire electoral process, even in a politically divided environment.
What should be the focus of candidates during campaigns for the 2027 general elections?
Candidates must move beyond rhetoric and focus on substantive national issues. Nigeria faces serious challenges; economic instability, insecurity, and governance deficits. Campaigns should therefore be issue-driven, offering practical and measurable solutions.
The electorate is increasingly discerning, and the era of purely emotional or personality-based politics is gradually giving way to performance and credibility. Nigeria stands at a critical point where the strength of its democracy will depend on institutional integrity, responsible political leadership, and an informed electorate committed to the rule of law.
