People that disobeyed their own party constitution will destroy Nigeria as a whole not just our constitution

By Bamidele Atoyebi

‎The legitimacy of an opposition party is not built on the volume of its protests, but on the weight of its evidence.

Historically, the Nigerian electorate has witnessed smoking guns that shook the foundations of power from leaked tapes to documented financial trails. However, a growing critique suggests that the current opposition, particularly the African Democratic Congress (ADC), is failing to meet this historical standard, presenting a narrative against the APC that lacks the factual rigour of its predecessors.

‎

‎The benchmark for such rigour was set during the 2003 general elections. Following the Southwest Tsunami, where the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) swept almost every Alliance for Democracy (AD) stronghold, the air was thick with documented malpractice. Senior political analyst Kunle Ajayi provided a comprehensive autopsy of the era, detailing how the PDP utilized state machinery and security forces to “strangle” the opposition.

These were not mere accusations, they were documented accounts of a systemic takeover that left only Lagos standing as a bastion of the AD.

‎

‎According to Ajayi’s research, the 2003 “winning formula” relied on the strategic use of security forces as a ready-made machinery for fraud. One major tactic was Instructional Collusion, where the Police Force allegedly issued a specific signal titled “Instruction for Strict Compliance,” directing officers to ensure the success of the PDP. This created an environment where the neutrality of the state was completely compromised in favor of the incumbent power.

‎

‎Another documented tactic involved Ballot Substitution through the use of force. Security forces were observed sporadically shooting into the air to scare away genuine voters. While the public fled for safety, empty ballot boxes were substituted for those already stuffed with thumb-printed papers. This ensured that even in areas where the PDP lacked genuine popularity, the recorded numbers told a different story.

‎

‎Furthermore, the PDP utilized Pre-emptive Arrests to decapitate the opposition’s leadership on the ground. Opponents were illegally arrested and detained on the eve of elections and on election days to prevent them from effectively mobilizing their supporters. By the time voters arrived at the polls, their local organizers were often already in custody, leaving the electorate leaderless and vulnerable to intimidation.

‎

‎The research also highlights Institutional Silence as a key tool for malpractice. Security agents were frequently reported to have stood by or collaborated while political thugs hijacked ballot papers and boxes. In many instances, the very people sworn to protect the sanctity of the vote were the ones providing cover for those destroying it, failing to act even in the face of blatant violence.

‎

‎Beyond passive silence, there was active Physical Suppression of the electorate. Voters at polling booths faced “jack-booting,” beatings, and harassment by security personnel, which directly infringed on their human rights. This was a calculated effort to suppress the turnout in opposition strongholds, ensuring that the final tally would be skewed in favor of the ruling party.

‎

‎This culture of admission through evidence reached a peak in 2007. The ruling party’s victory was so marred by documented irregularities that the beneficiary himself, President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, publicly confessed that the system was “deeply flawed”. This admission was a direct result of the undeniable pressure from observers and opposition groups who had meticulously mapped the failures of the electoral process, forcing the hand of the executive to acknowledge the truth.

‎

‎Perhaps the most vivid example of evidence-driven politics occurred during the 2014 Ekiti State gubernatorial election. The opposition produced the “Ekitigate” files, which included audio recordings where a military whistleblower exposed a plot involving high-ranking officials. The evidence was granular, it detailed how a banker allegedly moved ₦1.2 billion in cash to fund operations and how an Army General provided strategic cover to ensure a specific outcome.

‎

‎Contrast this history of hard facts with the current posture of the ADC. While the ADC frequently critiques the APC, critics point out a glaring absence of equivalent evidence. There are no leaked memos, no documented financial any illegal actives against ADC and no whistleblower testimonies that mirror the intensity of the 2003 or 2014 revelations. A claim without a “Sagir Koli” or a “Kunle Ajayi report” is often dismissed as mere political noise.

‎

‎Furthermore, the ADC’s moral authority is increasingly undermined by its own internal legal paradoxes. According to Article 17 and 18 of the ADC Constitution, party officials are strictly limited to two terms of four years each. Specifically, Article 18 mandates that no official can stand for election beyond eight years. However, records indicate that the party’s leadership remained stagnant for nearly two decades, with its chairmanship (Ralph Okey Nwosu) spanning from 2005 to 2023.

‎

‎This constitutional breach creates a significant legal vacuum. If the party’s own laws dictate a maximum eight-year tenure, the leadership’s actions after 2013 could be argued as legally non-existent. When a party fails to adhere to its own internal rule its ability to challenge the ruling party for constitutional infractions becomes a case of the “pot calling the kettle black.” This internal illegality makes it nearly impossible for the ADC to project the image of a disciplined alternative.

‎

‎The lesson of 2003, 2007, and 2014 is clear, power in Nigeria is challenged through the relentless application of truth. As long as the ADC remains entangled in its own constitutional violations and silent on the facts of the current administration’s alleged interference, the status quo will remain.

Bamidele Atoyebi is the Convener of BAT Ideological Group, National Coordinator of Accountability and Policy Monitoring and a publisher at Unfiltered and Mining Reporting