By John Onyeukwu

No tanks on the streets. No suspension of the constitution. No sweeping bans on political activity. Yet something fundamental begins to shift.

There are moments in the life of a democracy when everything appears normal. Courts sit. Electoral bodies issue statements. Political parties hold press conferences. On the surface, the system looks stable. Beneath that surface, however, the space for genuine political competition begins to contract.

The unfolding interaction between the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) represents precisely this kind of moment. It is not simply a dispute over party leadership or internal governance. It is a revealing case study of how democracies can close quietly, not through overt repression, but through the steady accumulation of procedural decisions.

INEC’s April 1, 2026 statement reflects institutional caution. Faced with competing claims arising from ongoing litigation, including Appeal No. CA/ABJ/145/2026 and a parallel case before the Federal High Court, the Commission has opted to maintain what it describes as the status quo ante bellum – essentially preserving the situation as it existed before the dispute. It has declined to recognise any faction within the ADC, removed previously listed party officials from its portal, and suspended engagement with all parties until the courts provide clarity. In effect, it has chosen not to act.

In legal terms, this approach is defensible. The Court of Appeal issued preservatory orders designed to prevent actions that might prejudice the outcome of the case. INEC, wary of being accused of bias or taking steps that could later be invalidated, has taken what it considers the safest path. It is saying, in effect, that it will do nothing that could be interpreted as altering the subject of litigation. But doing nothing is not always neutral. In political systems, inaction is rarely passive; it redistributes advantage.

The doctrine of status quo ante bellum is meant to preserve disputes, not to suspend political life. It is intended to ensure that no party gains an unfair advantage while a case is pending. It does not ordinarily imply that a political party should cease functioning altogether. Political organisations are expected to continue their internal processes, holding meetings, organising leadership structures, and preparing for elections, even as disputes make their way through the courts.

By interpreting judicial caution as a reason to disengage entirely, INEC has effectively transformed a legal safeguard into an administrative freeze with political consequences. The ADC now finds itself in a peculiar position: a registered political party that cannot function with institutional certainty. Its leadership is not recognised. Its activities are not monitored. Its engagement with the electoral body has been suspended. All of this occurs without a formal ban. This is how democracies begin to close quietly.

The ADC has responded by challenging INEC’s interpretation of the law. It argues that no court has expressly prohibited it from conducting congresses or internal conventions, and that internal party processes, when conducted in accordance with its constitution and the Electoral Act, should not be treated as violations of judicial orders. The party insists that “democratic continuity within a political organisation is presumed unless expressly restrained by a competent court.”

That argument is not without merit. Political parties are not meant to exist in a state of suspension. They are expected to resolve disputes while continuing to operate.

Yet the ADC’s position cannot be separated from the weaknesses that produced the crisis in the first place. Internal party democracy in Nigeria is often fragile. Leadership disputes are common. Succession processes are frequently contested. Institutional mechanisms for resolving conflicts are either weak or ineffective. As a result, disagreements that might otherwise be resolved internally quickly escalate into legal battles.

INEC, in turn, is forced to respond within a constrained legal framework. It must enforce compliance with electoral laws while remaining neutral in matters of internal party politics. The challenge lies in how that neutrality is interpreted. At what point does caution become overreach? At what point does regulatory restraint begin to shape political outcomes?

These questions become more urgent when viewed against Nigeria’s broader electoral experience. In APC v. Marafa, the Supreme Court invalidated an entire party’s electoral victories in Zamfara State due to procedural violations in candidate selection. That case demonstrated how strictly courts and electoral bodies can interpret compliance, and how devastating the consequences can be. For INEC, the lesson is clear: procedural errors can carry far-reaching implications, and caution is preferable to reversal. But caution, when extended too far, begins to reshape the system it is meant to protect.

The intervention of the All Progressives Congress (APC) adds another layer to the discussion. The ruling party has endorsed INEC’s position and criticised the ADC for internal disorganisation, arguing that a party unable to manage its own affairs lacks the credibility to present itself as a viable alternative. While this reflects a political perspective, it also highlights how institutional decisions are interpreted through the lens of power. When a regulatory body’s actions align with the interests of a dominant political force, questions about neutrality inevitably arise. This alignment, whether coincidental or structural, illustrates how procedural decisions can acquire distributive political effects.

This is where warnings from voices such as Femi Falana resonate. Falana has cautioned that “through the manipulation of Nigerian courts and senior lawyers, you may have only one candidate contesting the presidential election in this country.” The statement is deliberately stark, but it reflects a broader concern: that the accumulation of legal and procedural hurdles may eventually reduce the field of political competition to a narrow few. Similarly, several analysts have warned of a gradual drift toward a one-party system, suggesting that legal mechanisms are increasingly being used to shape political outcomes in subtle but consequential ways.

These concerns are not without empirical grounding. Nigeria’s party system has undergone significant consolidation over the past decade. From a proliferation of parties, the system has gradually narrowed, through both legal deregistration and electoral outcomes. At the same time, pre-election litigation has increased substantially, with hundreds of cases filed in each election cycle. What emerges is a system in which legal compliance is no longer just a requirement, but a decisive factor in political viability.

This does not necessarily signal democratic collapse. It does, however, point to a shift in how democracy operates. Political competition is increasingly mediated by legal processes, institutional interpretations, and procedural compliance. Parties that can navigate these complexities thrive. Those that cannot risk exclusion, not through prohibition, but through procedural failure.

The ADC–INEC dispute illustrates this dynamic with unusual clarity. The issue is not whether opposition is formally allowed. It is whether opposition can function effectively within the constraints of the system. When regulatory caution leads to the suspension of engagement with a political party, and when judicial interpretation is extended to the point of institutional paralysis, the result is a narrowing of political space.

INEC would argue that it is simply following the law. That is, in a narrow sense, correct. But democracy is not sustained by legal correctness alone. It depends on the ability of institutions to balance caution with participation, and enforcement with openness. The challenge for regulators is not only to avoid illegality, but to avoid inadvertently constraining political competition through excessive procedural caution.

The ADC, for its part, must confront its internal weaknesses. A political party that cannot resolve leadership disputes internally cannot reasonably expect to function effectively within a competitive electoral system. Internal democracy is not optional; it is essential. Without it, parties become vulnerable to external intervention, legal challenges, and regulatory constraints. Leadership ambiguity creates openings for factional contestation, and those divisions often migrate into the courts. Once disputes are judicialised, the party loses a measure of control over its own future.

Yet even as these realities are acknowledged, the broader implication must remain in focus. The issue is not simply the fate of one political party. It is the trajectory of the system itself.

Democracies do not always collapse in dramatic fashion. More often, they evolve slowly, shaped by a series of incremental decisions that, taken together, alter the nature of political competition. Each decision, viewed in isolation, may appear justified, even necessary. But cumulatively, they can produce a system that is less open, less competitive, and less representatives of the electorate’s preferences.

Nigeria is not witnessing the abolition of democracy. It is witnessing the gradual tightening of its contours. The number of actors’ remains, but the conditions under which they operate are becoming more restrictive. The rules are still in place, but their application is becoming more consequential. The system continues to function, but the space within which it functions is narrowing.

Political participation remains formally protected, yet the practical ability to compete is increasingly conditioned on navigating a dense web of legal and procedural requirements. This is how democracies close: quietly, incrementally, and often legally.

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.

Plateau, Benue and Kaduna States are places in Nigeria where the earth no longer remembers what it means to be still. The soil has become an archive of grief layered with the blood and memories of lives cut short, families shattered, and communities erased in the dark of night. Again, the killings have returned, the country mourns, nothing feels new and our leaders will offer their usual refrain: sorrows, sorrows, prayers.

In recent days, the cycle of violence has tightened its grip. In Zike community, Bassa LGA, armed militia reportedly killed at least 54 people, many of them children and elderly residents who could neither flee nor fight. Homes were razed, bodies left in the open, and survivors plunged into a grief too deep for words. This was not an isolated incident. It was part of a pattern.

On Palm Sunday, a day meant to symbolise peace, sacrifice, and redemption, gunmen descended on Angwan Rukuba in Jos North. They came in the night, shooting indiscriminately. At least 30 people were killed, with many others injured and displaced.

On Easter Sunday, Kaduna and Benue were also not spared. This is the tragedy: the killings are no longer shocking; like clockwork, they are expected. Then the retaliations follow because those responsible for the carnage feed the fire of an existing inter ethnic/religious conflict and the cycle continues.

A Land Caught Between Memory and Violence

Plateau State has long been described as Nigeria’s “Home of Peace and Tourism.” But that identity now rings hollow. What persists instead is a fragile coexistence constantly ruptured by violence rooted in a complex web of land disputes, ethnic tensions, religious identity, and state failure.

Experts often point to the farmer-herder conflict as a central driver. As climate change pushes pastoralists southward in search of grazing land, competition with farming communities intensifies. But to reduce the violence to environmental stress alone is to miss the deeper crisis: the normalisation of impunity.

In Zike, as in countless communities before it, the victims were not collateral damage in a distant war. They were targeted in their homes, in their sleep, in their vulnerability. Reports from previous attacks in the same area indicate that victims often include children and elderly people, those least able to escape when violence comes. This is not conflict. It is slaughter!

There is something particularly jarring about violence that desecrates sacred time. Palm Sunday is meant to be a moment of reflection, a reminder of humility, sacrifice, and hope. But in Angwan Rukuba, it became a day of bloodshed. Residents recount how armed men stormed the community, some reportedly dressed in uniforms resembling those of security forces, before opening fire on defenceless civilians.

The aftermath tells its own story. Curfews imposed. Protests erupting. Examinations suspended at the University of Jos. Life interrupted, once again, by violence that arrives without warning and leaves without consequence. For the people of Plateau, mourning has become routine. Burial has become a weekly ritual. And fear has become a permanent resident.

The bloodshed did not end in Plateau. On Easter Sunday, attacks in Kaduna and Benue again shattered a sacred moment. In Benue, gunmen killed at least 17 people in Gwer West, destroying homes and displacing families. In Kachia LGA, Kaduna, worshippers were attacked during church services, with several killed and others abducted. These assaults targeting people at prayer and in their homes underscore a grim reality: in parts of Nigeria, no place is safe and no day is sacred, as violence continues to spread unchecked.

Beyond Narratives of “Clashes” and The Failure of Protection

Every massacre raises the same questions: Where were the security forces? Why do these attacks continue unabated? Who is held accountable? The answers are as troubling as the questions.

Despite repeated deployments of security personnel, the killings persist. Communities speak of delayed responses, of warnings ignored, of attackers who arrive and leave with chilling ease. In some cases, the use of military-style uniforms and vehicles by assailants has further complicated the already fragile relationship between citizens and the state. This is more than a security lapse. It is a systemic failure.

When a state cannot protect its citizens, when entire communities can be wiped out overnight without consequence, it erodes the very foundation of governance. People begin to retreat into self-help, into suspicion, into cycles of retaliation that only deepen the crisis. And so, the violence continues, not just because of those who perpetrate it, but because of the vacuum that allows it to thrive.

One of the most dangerous aspects of the crisis is the language used to describe it. Too often, these killings are framed as “clashes”, as though they are spontaneous eruptions of mutual aggression between equal parties. They are not. What happened over Easter was not a clash. These were coordinated attacks on vulnerable communities with the motive of annihilation. Language matters because it shapes response. When violence is mischaracterised, it is misunderstood. And when it is misunderstood, it is poorly addressed.

There is also a tendency to reduce the crisis to religious binaries: Muslim versus Christian, herder versus farmer. While identity plays a significant role, such simplifications obscure the deeper structural issues: governance failures, competition over resources, the proliferation of small arms, terrorism and the absence of justice. Until these root causes are confronted, the killings will not stop.

The Cost of Silence and Breaking the Cycle

Perhaps the most haunting aspect of the killings is not just the violence itself, but the silence that follows. There are statements of condemnation, promises of investigation and visits by government officials expressing sympathy. But beyond the immediate aftermath, the urgency fades.

The headlines move on. The country forgets, but the people do not forget. They remember the names, the faces and the nights when sleep was shattered by gunfire and the mornings that revealed the scale of loss. Silence, in this context, is not neutrality. It is complicity.

To speak of solutions in the face of such recurring tragedy can feel almost naive. But it is necessary. First, there must be accountability. Not just arrests, but prosecutions. Not just statements, but justice. Without consequences, violence becomes a viable option.

Second, there must be intelligence-led security. The pattern of attacks suggests planning and coordination. This is not random violence; it is organised. Preventing it requires more than reactive deployments; it requires proactive disruption. General Christopher Musa’s appointment in December 2025 had raised significant public expectations to decisively curb insecurity; unfortunately, that hope remains painfully unfulfilled.

Third, there must be a genuine effort to address the underlying drivers of conflict. Land use policies, climate adaptation strategies, religious and ethnic intolerance and community-based peacebuilding initiatives are not optional; they are essential.

Finally, there must be political will. Not the performative kind that surfaces after each tragedy, but the sustained commitment required to confront a crisis that has festered for too long.

This is not just a regional crisis; it is a national warning. It speaks to a Nigeria where insecurity is no longer an exception but a condition where communities live on the edge of fear.

If the killings continue unchecked, they will not remain confined to states. Violence, like fire, spreads. The question, then, is not whether Nigeria can afford to act. It is whether it can afford not to. It is also a test of Nigeria’s conscience, leadership and capacity for justice.

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.

Every Saturday, I reach for the Saturday Tribune to read the latest tales of dirty underwear from Ibadan’s courts of broken marriages. There are always stories—divorce petitions and intimate scandals—from the Chief Customary Court sitting at Ojaaba in Ibadan.

I once asked the editor of the paper whether there were no Catholics in Ibadan and whether that court ever went on holiday. He laughed and told me that even in Rome, the home of Catholic marriage, people file for divorce and wash their dirty, stinking linen in public every week.

He pointed me to the Rome News Tribune, which, on April 4, 2026, published on its website the names of people who “filed for divorce through the Floyd County Superior Court Clerk’s Office for the week of March 23, 2026″. That Roman newspaper went on to name names. I avoid doing that here.

What struck me, however, is that there is no hallowed ground anywhere when it comes to the sanctity of marriage.

People exit marriages for all sorts of reasons and faults. Sometimes, the cause may be as trivial as a spouse not knowing how to neatly press a toothpaste tube; at other times, it may be as grave as outright betrayal.

In some cases, partners simply drift apart without formal divorce proceedings.

But it can be deeply painful—or downright foolish—for a partner not to realise when the market is over. Market. Yes, marriage is a market: it is about buying and selling, offer and acceptance. That is why it is a contract.

In 2013, I wrote a piece titled “Ladies, this is how to know your man is through with you.”

Since that piece was written 13 years ago, much water has passed under the bridge of both great and not-so-great marriages.

Read Also: Echoes of Trauma: The cost of looking away, By Lillian Okenwa

Read Also: AfBA 2026 Call for Papers: A continental push for legal answers to Africa’s security and economic crises

Because if lice will not stop living in the hem of a dress, the fingers will not be free of blood. I reproduce that 2013 piece here verbatim:

So, how do you know if you are being dumped or if you are already the ‘dumpee’ even this minute? First, let us agree that not all relationships end in ‘I do’. Many end in ‘I don’t’. If a man no longer wants to ‘do’, you would do well, my sister, to learn to let him go.

When a man is done with a relationship, he is done. He may not look like he is even lacing up his boots, yet he may have left you weeks ago. A woman needs to learn how to read the signs—and what to do. Unlike women, who are often sentimental about ending relationships, men tend to be more logical.

If they want out, they head for the door. Some try to be nice about it—though I doubt there is a nice way to dump a woman—but a man who is through is through. Trying to stop him is, most times, a waste of time and energy. When a man finds himself in a tight corner, the first person he looks out for is himself. He may not intend to hurt, but hurt is what follows. The dumper may even be more hurt than the dumpee—if you get my meaning. Perhaps that is why the stench from dump sites is always so terrible. Dumping is simply bad business.

So, how do you know you are being dumped—or already dumped? Again, let us agree that not all relationships end in ‘I do’. Many end in ‘I don’t’. If a man no longer wants to ‘do’, it is wiser to let him go. Not that you can stop him if he is already eyeing the door, but it is easier on the dumpee if she holds a meeting between her heart and her head—and they agree not to cause a scene.

Here is one sign: he stops asking detailed questions about your movements. If he once checked on you three times between leaving the office and getting home but now only asks, “How was your day?”—and quickly changes the subject when you begin to explain—let the green light in your head turn amber. If you mention a dinner and all he says is “okay” without asking who is hosting, where it is, or what you will wear, you are losing your grip. As far as he is concerned, you can go jump in an acid lake.

He will also stop explaining his own movements. If you see another woman in his car and stop him, a “nice” dumper will greet you, say he is in a hurry, and move on. Note: he does not introduce her, nor explain who you are. Count yourself lucky he even stopped—and keep that amber light on. You are no longer as important as you used to be. Or did you believe the “I’m in a hurry” line?

If you have met members of his family, be alert to a sudden chill. Watch for smiles that do not reach the eyes, pitying looks, and barely concealed relief when you say you are leaving. They may like you—but he has likely introduced someone else and told them he is done with you.

When a man begins to make himself unavailable and unapproachable, he is signalling that the deal is off. If weekends once spent together are now always “busy”, do not ignore the alarm bells. If you visit unannounced, you may well find your replacement.

If the man who once could not keep his hands and eyes off you now sees you in lingerie, adjusts his glasses, and returns to his laptop or iPad, you are likely headed for the dumpsite. If he walks past you in the shower without a second glance, there is cause for serious concern.

If your ten calls a day have dwindled to one—or none—you are a dumpee awaiting formal confirmation.

That man has moved on. I suggest you do the same.

Yes—this is my verdict in my capacity as Chairman, National Assembly Joint Committee on Intimate Affairs.

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.