Before ADC self destructs

He saw ADC as a readymade vehicle that he could acquire cheaply and without fuss for his dream ride to the presidency. ‘Hijacking’ a party is not that easy under the law, especially where there is an existing national working committee (NWC) guided by a set of rules. As the organ that oversees the day-to-day running of a party, most NWCs operates more like a cult. They guide their interests jealously, making many concessionary provisions for their leaders.

This makes it hard for any outsider to break in. Any outsider who succeeds in doing so must be superhuman. As it has turned out, Atiku, Mark, Aregbesola, El-Rufai, Amaechi and co were not. They were outsmarted by Nwosu who knew from the outset that he could not hand over ADC to them the way he did under the guise of a coalition. How did the coalition emerge? Was it after talks between Atiku’s people and Nwosu’s?

Who else apart from Nwosu in the ‘legacy’ ADC  took active part in the coalition talks? At which NWC meeting was it decided that its members should go for the Mark gang? What were the terms agreed upon for such a takeover? Did the NWC members resign en bloc? Do their resignation letters bear the same date? Why is Nafiu Bala Gombe, Nwosu’s deputy, contesting his own ‘resignation’?

Gombe says he did not resign and went to court to challenge the fact that he was bypassed and another person, an outsider for that matter going by the name of David Mark was made chairman instead of him. The court refused his request for interim injunction and ordered that the defendants be served to come and show reasons why the relief sought should not he granted in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025: Nafiu Bala Gombe vs ADC, Mark, Aregbesola, INEC and Nwosu.

Instead of complying with the court order, Mark appealed. For crying out loud, he appealed that he should come and show cause why the applicant’s request should not be granted! This alone says something about Mark and his group - they have something to hide about the coalition. If not, they would have joined issues with Gombe and allowed the court to settle the case instead of rushing to appeal, of all things, an order  to show cause!

The appeal court has rightly ordered them back to the high court to properly thrash out the matter. To ensure that the lower court’s hands are not tied before the resolution of the case, the appeal court directed that the status quo ante bellum (that is the state of things before the dispute) be maintained. In compliance, INEC withdrew, in the interim, its recognition of the Mark-led NWC, and all hell was let loose.

The coalition has been whining and pointing fingers at everybody but itself for its self-inflicted woes. Rather than stick to the rule, following the appeal court order, it is doing otherwise. It has threatened to go ahead with its convention billed for April 14, some five days from today, without INEC in attendance. Today, which has been slated for its congresses nationwide, will determine if it will carry out its threat, if the exercise holds.

According to the coalition, the law says a party should give INEC notice (of its meeting, congress or convention for the election of its executive or candidates, among others) “and we have done that. The Electoral Act did not say INEC should be in attendance”. There, the coalition goes again. It is this penchant for impunity that got it into trouble in the first place, yet it has not learnt any lesson.

For the avoidance of doubts, the Act is clear on what is expected of INEC in its relationship with the parties. The coalition cannot read Section 82 (1) of the Act in isolation to 82 (3). Subsection 1, as it rightly said, talks about giving INEC notice, while subsection 3 which it pretends does not exist speaks of INEC’s mandatory attendance at certain functions of “registered political parties”.

Read Also: Resilient Nigeria making progress, says Fed Govt

The subsection even rubs it in. It says INEC can perform that duty on its own terms. INEC “shall” attend such conventions, meetings or congresses with or without giving a party any notice, the law says. As it is wont to do, the coalition is planning to subvert the law in order to have its way, and it is being cheered on by some lawyers and so-called activists who profit from this kind of confusion (arije ninu madaru, as the Yoruba call them).

Then, when the law speaks, as it often does at the appropriate time, the coalition will start blaming third parties instead of accepting the consequences of its action. It is in its interest to think deeply before taking further steps on this matter. The people know these characters and their antecedents well. Our memory is not that short that some of yesterday’s top coup plotters will today be masquerading as defenders of democracy and we will be clapping for them.

They should first wean themselves of their pride and haugtiness before thinking of holding out as democracy defenders. The people cannot be fooled. Those who have ears let them hear. A word is enough for the wise.