Daniel Bwala, a presidential aide, has publicly criticised the African Democratic Congress (ADC) amid a deepening leadership crisis within the party. His comments followed the Independent National Electoral Commission's (INEC) decision to withdraw recognition from the faction led by former Senate President David Mark. In a post on X, formerly Twitter, on Friday, Bwala claimed he had predicted the turmoil, stating, "I said this six months ago and if you want to know why ADC is more confused than the mad man that used to advise Gregory, here are the facts." He questioned the party's internal coherence, arguing that a party where "everybody wants to be president (selfish)" cannot form a strong opposition. Bwala described the ADC's foundation as a "hostile take-over," asserting such origins make it unfit to withstand political pressure. He criticised the party's ideological inconsistency, pointing out frequent changes of political allegiance by its presidential aspirants. "A party where the members have double standards that they apply to people cannot see road," he wrote. Bwala also accused ADC leaders of viewing Nigerians as tools for personal gain, warning that desperation undermines governance. "A party where their leaders's desperation is a do or die affair cannot govern Nigerians," he added. The ADC has faced internal divisions in recent weeks, with competing factions claiming legitimacy after INEC's intervention and ongoing court cases.
Daniel Bwala's scathing critique of the ADC lays bare the contradictions of a party built on political convenience rather than principle, with David Mark's now-unrecognised faction serving as a case study in how elite manoeuvring can hollow out party structures. His use of sharp, almost theatrical language—comparing the party's confusion to that of "the mad man that used to advise Gregory"—is not mere rhetoric but a reflection of public cynicism toward parties that emerge from acrimonious takeovers rather than grassroots mobilisation.
The ADC's crisis is not just internal—it reveals the fragility of opposition formations in Nigeria's political economy, where party loyalty often bends to individual ambition. Bwala's point about aspirants changing parties "like chameleon" hits at a broader trend: the commodification of political affiliation. When INEC withdrew recognition from Mark's faction, it didn't create the crisis—it exposed one that was already rotting from within. The absence of a clear ideology or consistent membership criteria makes the ADC a mirror of Nigeria's transactional politics.
For ordinary Nigerians, especially young voters seeking credible alternatives to the ruling parties, the ADC's implosion means another promise unfulfilled. Those who pinned hopes on a united opposition front now face the reality of fragmented, personality-driven factions that offer no policy clarity. This isn't just a party failing—it's a pattern.
