The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has yet to secure a venue in Abuja for its national convention scheduled for Tuesday, April 14, 2026, just 24 hours before the event. Party chieftain Kola Ologbondiyan disclosed on Monday that the party's request to use Eagles Square was acknowledged by the office of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, but no approval has been granted. The ADC also sought access to the Velodrome at Moshood Abiola National Stadium but was denied despite multiple visits to officials at the Federal Ministry of Sports. Ologbondiyan stated that private event centres in Abuja are rejecting the party's booking requests, citing fears of government harassment. He maintained that the convention would proceed as planned in Abuja, in line with the party's notice to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The ADC's leadership crisis, stemming from the 2025 resignation of former chairman Ralph Nwosu and a resulting split between factions linked to David Mark and Nafiu Bala, remains unresolved, with INEC withholding recognition pending a court decision. Opposition figures including Atiku Abubakar, Peter Obi, Rotimi Amaechi, Aminu Tambuwal, and Rauf Aregbesola recently protested at INEC's headquarters, alleging government interference in opposition activities. The Presidency, through spokesman Sunday Dare, denied any bias, affirming equal rights for all parties.
Kola Ologbondiyan's public account of the ADC's failed attempts to secure Eagles Square and the Velodrome exposes a pattern of administrative friction that disproportionately affects smaller opposition parties. The fact that both government and private venues have turned down the ADC—despite formal applications and acknowledgments—suggests a chilling effect that goes beyond logistical hurdles. When private event centres cite fear of harassment, it points to an environment where neutrality is compromised not by law but by perception, and where access to democratic space is quietly negotiated behind closed doors.
This is not merely about a missing hall or a delayed permit. It reflects the asymmetry in political power under the Tinubu administration, where even symbolic spaces like Eagles Square become contested terrain. The ADC's internal division, with INEC refusing to recognise either faction, further weakens its standing and amplifies its vulnerability to exclusion. Yet the party's insistence on holding the convention anyway underscores a defiance that resonates beyond its current size—especially as larger opposition figures have rallied around the issue, framing it as part of a broader squeeze on dissent.
For ordinary Nigerians, particularly grassroots activists and party members, the message is clear: participation in politics carries invisible costs. The difficulty a registered party faces in renting a venue signals that democratic engagement is not just about ballots, but about access to space, voice, and visibility. If securing a room in Abuja requires political clearance, then the playing field is not level.
This episode fits a wider trend in Nigerian politics where administrative tools—permits, recognitions, venue allocations—are used to marginalise dissent without outright bans. Parties like the ADC become test cases, and their struggles reveal how democracy is often constrained not by force, but by friction.
