Deciding the shape of power before the vote
In Nigeria today, power is no longer waiting for the ballot. It is being contested in courtrooms, unsettled in party secretariats, and translated through the cautious pen of the Independent
- By Lekan Olayiwola
In Nigeria today, power is no longer waiting for the ballot. It is being contested in courtrooms, unsettled in party secretariats, and translated through the cautious pen of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Before rallies ignite or posters rise, the struggle has already begun quietly, procedurally, and increasingly decisive.
What should be open contest is taking on a pre-shaped form. Across parties, disputes spill outward, drawing judges, administrators, and regulators into battles of legitimacy. The contest for 2027 is not yet on the streets; it is unfolding earlier, in spaces where law and procedure determine what voters will later be asked to confirm.
When process begins to look like outcome
In reality, the present tensions between African Democratic Congress (ADC) and INEC was not initiated by institutional overreach. INEC’s actions are, in large part, responses to formal communications and judicial signals triggered by disputes within the ADC itself. Courts, bound to hear matters brought before them, have issued rulings and entertained appeals within their remit. In that narrow sense, procedure is being followed.
Yet it is precisely this convergence of internal party failure, legal escalation, and administrative compliance that produces a wider effect. What appears as discrete, lawful steps accumulates into outcomes with clear political consequences. A letter compels attention. A court ruling demands recognition. An appeal introduces uncertainty.
Each action is defensible on its own terms. Together, they begin to shape the field of political competition. The issue, then, is not whether institutions are acting lawfully, but whether the cumulative effect of lawful actions is reshaping the space within which voters can meaningfully choose.
Advertisement
300x250
Read Also: Burna Boy music ban claims false, misleading - DJAN
From regulation to entanglement
This marks a subtle but important shift. In 2012 and 2020, INEC’s most consequential interventions such as party deregistration came after elections were over and were based on measurable performance thresholds. The current episode is different. It unfolds in the pre-election period, driven not by electoral outcomes but by unresolved intra-party disputes and competing legal claims.
INEC is not merely enforcing rules after the fact; it is navigating live contests over legitimacy as they unfold. This is not a change in mandate, but a change in context. Party conflicts no longer remain internal. They escalate outward, drawing regulatory and judicial institutions into closer proximity. Neutrality, in this environment, becomes harder to sustain in perception, even when preserved in procedure.
A global pattern, not an isolated drift
Nigeria’s experience reflects a broader shift in democratic practice, where contestation increasingly moves upstream into the pre-election phase. In Pakistan, judicial decisions on candidate eligibility and party symbols have reshaped the competitive field before ballots are cast.
In Senegal, rulings by the Constitutional Council of Senegal have altered both candidate lists and election timing. In Israel, courts routinely adjudicate party bans and disqualifications ahead of elections. Across Bangladesh and Thailand, similar dynamics persist, shaping who competes, and on what terms, before voters engage.
Evidence of three possible trajectories
Comparative experience suggests three trajectories in how legal and administrative processes shape electoral competition before voting begins. One is institutionalisation, where judicial–electoral interaction becomes structured and predictable, as in Brazil. Another is corrective intervention, where courts periodically reset flawed processes, as seen in Kenya. A third is gradual entrenchment, where pre-election rulings and administrative actions stabilise political arrangements before voters engage.
Advertisement
300x250
Nigeria sits uneasily between these paths. Political parties remain weakly institutionalised, functioning more as electoral coalitions than durable organisations, with fragile internal dispute resolution. Leadership contests often escalate outward into legal and administrative arenas, drawing courts and regulators into determining legitimacy. INEC, in turn, translates legal signals into political recognition. Thus, the shape of power is increasingly influenced before voters enter the equation.
When pre-election battles shape voter behaviour
Pre-election structuring is uneven, but consequential. Local variations accumulate into a national pattern. In the North-central, delays in candidate emergence intersect with communal sensitivities. In the Southeast, judicially mediated fragmentation weakens opposition coherence. In the Southwest, interventions into party disputes are interpreted through the lens of strategic competition. In Lagos and Abuja, elite alignments amplify the stakes.
The effects extend beyond institutions to citizens themselves. Nigeria’s voter turnout has fallen sharply from about 69% in 2003 to below 30% in 2023. While multiple factors contribute to this decline, a deeper perception taking hold is that electoral outcomes are increasingly shaped beyond the voter’s immediate influence.
When candidate emergence is settled through prolonged legal contestation, and party legitimacy is determined externally, voters encounter a narrowed field of meaningful choice. Participation becomes less about selecting among competing visions and more about endorsing pre-structured outcomes. The pattern is not immediate disengagement, but gradual erosion. Trust becomes conditional. Participation becomes selective.
The risk ahead: Between drift and design
Advertisement
300x250
Nigeria has not institutionalised this pre-election interaction as Brazil has, nor deployed it as a clearly bounded corrective mechanism in the manner of Kenya. Instead, it occupies an ambiguous space where legal and administrative engagement is intensifying before elections without clear limits or sequencing. If current trends persist, elections may remain formally intact while their decisive moments shift further upstream.
Pre-election litigation may overshadow mobilisation, and disputes over eligibility, recognition, and authority may define competition before campaigns fully unfold. INEC risks overexposure as the arena of translation, while the judiciary risks repeated entanglement in politically consequential pre-election decisions. This is not democratic collapse. It is a quieter shift where the locus of decision-making moves progressively away from the voter.
The real test, what must be reclaimed
The answer is not to retreat from law or process. It is to restore balance. Political parties must rebuild internal mechanisms capable of resolving disputes before they escalate outward. INEC must continue to act within the law, but with greater clarity and communicative precision to sustain public trust. The judiciary must expedite electoral causes and remain attentive not only to legal correctness but to the systemic weight of its cumulative interventions.
Most importantly, political competition must return to the voter as its central arena. Nigeria’s democracy is not under strain because institutions are absent. It is under strain because they are increasingly required to manage what politics has failed to contain. As 2027 approaches, the question is no longer simply who will win. It is whether Nigerians will still feel that their votes decide or whether they merely confirm what has already been shaped before they arrive at the ballot.
•Olayiwola is a peace & conflict researcher/policy analyst. He can be reached at lekanolayiwola@gmail.com
