Opposition parties in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic have been repeatedly plagued by internal crises that the Independent National Electoral Commission has struggled to resolve, raising persistent questions about the commission’s independence, writes Leo Sobechi.
A recent ruling by the Court of Appeal in a case filed by Nafiu Bala Gombe (FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025) has thrust the Latin phrase status quo ante bellum — meaning a return to the state of affairs before a conflict — into the center of political controversy.
Nigeria’s electoral history is filled with judicial pronouncements that have often deepened confusion rather than resolved disputes. Before the current debate over status quo ante bellum, legal doctrines such as “substantial non-compliance,” “locus standi,” and “non-justiciable” dominated electoral litigation.
Since Nigeria’s return to multiparty democracy, INEC and the judiciary have played decisive roles in determining electoral outcomes, often leaving voters as passive participants. Persistent electoral malpractice has driven repeated reforms, but legal ambiguities have continued to complicate the system.
Efforts to ensure that electoral outcomes reflect the will of voters have shaped successive Electoral Acts, influencing both election procedures and political behavior. While INEC oversees elections and party compliance with regulations, the judiciary operates independently, often determining final outcomes in disputes.
Critics argue that judicial decisions in electoral matters sometimes reinforce the notion that “the law is an ass,” particularly when rulings appear inconsistent or opaque.
Former President Olusegun Obasanjo once recounted an anecdote about corrupt judges allegedly preparing conflicting judgments, delivering decisions based on inducements. He said judicial corruption is difficult to address externally without internal reform.
The principle that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done — articulated by Lord Hewart in the 1924 case R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy — remains central to public trust. Even legally sound decisions can erode confidence if perceived as biased.
INEC and its chairman, Prof. Joash Ojo Amupitan, now face scrutiny over their interpretation of the Court of Appeal’s directive on maintaining the status quo ante bellum in the Gombe case. Critics argue the decision appeared unfair, particularly amid ongoing leadership disputes within the African Democratic Congress.
Observers question whether the principle implies neutrality or effectively weakens opposition coalitions. Rather than pursuing legal remedies based on ubi jus, ibi remedium — where there is a right, there is a remedy — some party members have resorted to protests, calling for leadership changes within INEC.
Historically, INEC has had contentious relationships with opposition parties. Ahead of the 2003 elections, the Alliance for Democracy was divided by a leadership struggle between Mojisola Akinfenwa and Bisi Akande, weakening the party and contributing to electoral losses.
Similar patterns have emerged across parties. The All Progressives Grand Alliance faced internal conflict after the 2003 elections, including disputes involving Chekwas Okorie, Victor Umeh and Peter Obi, leading to prolonged litigation.
More recently, parties such as the Peoples Democratic Party, Labour Party and New Nigeria Peoples Party have experienced internal instability, often turning to courts to resolve disputes.
Analysts say a party loses direction when its internal processes become subject to judicial intervention. They argue INEC should act more decisively as a regulator, similar to how central banks oversee financial institutions, to ensure internal party stability.
A report by the Athena Election Observatory, promoted by former aviation minister Osita Chidoka, emphasized that multiple parties alone do not guarantee meaningful democratic competition. It said effective democracy requires transparent leadership processes, credible governance and legitimate dispute resolution mechanisms.
The report warned that weak internal systems shift political competition away from policy toward litigation and personality conflicts, undermining public confidence.
It also stressed that regulatory and judicial institutions must act consistently and transparently. Where decisions appear arbitrary, trust in both the political process and oversight bodies declines.
Ultimately, analysts say the frequent formation of coalitions and party mergers reflects deeper structural weaknesses. While Nigeria has many political parties, their instability often creates more challenges than solutions for democratic governance.
