The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has endorsed the Nigerian Bar Association's (NBA) stance against judicial interference in political party leadership matters. In a statement released on Saturday, ADC national publicity secretary Bolaji Abdullahi said the NBA's position supports the party's argument that courts lack jurisdiction over internal party affairs. He cited the NBA's declaration that seeking interim court orders in such disputes breaches the Electoral Act. "What we are witnessing is not a legitimate legal dispute. It is a coordinated effort to weaponize the judicial process for political ends," Abdullahi stated, describing such actions as forum shopping and malafide litigation. He linked the trend to broader political anxieties within the ruling party, pointing to worsening insecurity, economic instability, rising unemployment, and declining public trust. Abdullahi warned that any court orders obtained in violation of the Electoral Act are legally defective and cannot be upheld. He expressed concern that some actors continue to involve the judiciary in matters explicitly excluded by law, creating confusion around ADC's leadership. The ADC commended the NBA for challenging these practices and for urging disciplinary action against legal practitioners and judicial officers who undermine statutory provisions. The party called on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to recognise the NBA's position and avoid validating processes that contradict the Electoral Act. Abdullahi stressed that INEC must remain neutral and not become an instrument of political engineering. He said the issue extends beyond ADC, touching on the integrity of Nigeria's democratic system.
Bolaji Abdullahi's sharp critique exposes more than a party dispute—it reveals how legal institutions are being quietly repurposed as tools of political control. By framing judicial interference as deliberate sabotage, he names the real target: not just ADC's leadership, but the autonomy of all opposition parties ahead of 2027. The fact that the NBA had to formally intervene to reaffirm that courts cannot meddle in party affairs suggests the norm is already eroding.
This is not an isolated legal overreach but part of a broader pattern where democratic guardrails are tested through technicalities. The reference to forum shopping and malafide litigation points to a well-resourced strategy to exploit judicial bottlenecks and sympathetic benches. With the ruling party facing plummeting public confidence over economic hardship and insecurity, neutralizing opposition structures becomes a parallel governance tactic—one that operates under legal cover but serves political survival.
Ordinary Nigerians, especially ADC members and voters, stand to lose clarity and fairness in party processes. If internal party democracy can be outsourced to selected courts, voter choice in primaries and elections becomes predetermined. This undermines trust in electoral outcomes, regardless of INEC's final role.
A growing number of parties have faced similar legal challenges, suggesting a playbook is being circulated. When judicial processes are routinely weaponized, democracy doesn't collapse—it is slowly reprogrammed.
