Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has challenged the Independent National Electoral Commission's decision to remove David Mark as National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress. INEC announced on April 1 that it would no longer recognise Mark's leadership or the faction led by Nafiu Bala, citing a Court of Appeal directive requiring parties to revert to the status quo ante bellum. Atiku, speaking in a BBC Newsday interview aired on Saturday, accused INEC of overstepping its authority by interpreting the appellate court's interim ruling on internal party matters. He described the commission's action as legally unjustified and biased. "We are accusing them [INEC] of misinterpreting the law, even though it is not their responsibility to do that. The court has already interpreted the law. We are also accusing them of bias," he said. When asked if the bias favoured President Bola Tinubu's administration, Atiku responded, "For sure." He cited Supreme Court precedents affirming that political parties' internal affairs are not subject to external interference. Atiku condemned the removal of Mark-led ADC executives from INEC's website, calling it a threat to democratic progress. He warned that government interference in electoral and judicial processes undermines democracy. Atiku also raised concerns about rising insecurity and unemployment, attributing both to poor governance. He argued Nigeria has sufficient manpower and resources to combat terrorism and create jobs but lacks the political will. He urged greater private sector involvement in job creation and expressed confidence that Nigerians would elect the right leaders in 2027.
Atiku Abubakar's direct accusation that INEC's actions favour President Bola Tinubu exposes a deepening crisis of trust in Nigeria's electoral institution. By naming Tinubu and asserting that bias is "for sure" behind INEC's decision on the ADC leadership, Atiku is not merely contesting a procedural move—he is framing it as part of a broader pattern of executive influence over independent bodies. His reference to Supreme Court rulings, which consistently protect political parties' autonomy, underscores that this is not a legal grey area but a clear deviation from established precedent.
The real issue here is not just about David Mark or the ADC—it is about the shrinking space for opposition parties to operate without state interference. Atiku's claim that INEC removed executives from its website after a court merely ordered a return to the pre-litigation status suggests administrative overreach with political consequences. When an electoral body begins to act as a judge in party disputes, especially in ways that align with the ruling party's interests, it erodes public confidence in electoral fairness. This is not an isolated incident but fits a trend where regulatory agencies appear to respond more to power than to law.
Ordinary Nigerians, particularly opposition members and party aspirants, face increasing difficulty in challenging the ruling party on a level playing field. If INEC can unilaterally alter party leadership recognition without judicial finality, it sets a dangerous precedent for future elections. Aspirants in parties like the ADC, PDP, or others may find their legitimacy subject to bureaucratic discretion rather than legal process. This undermines internal democracy and discourages credible candidates from contesting.
This episode fits into a wider pattern of democratic backsliding, where institutions meant to safeguard electoral integrity instead appear to serve political convenience. The convergence of Atiku's allegations on INEC, insecurity, and unemployment points to a systemic failure—not of capacity, but of will.
