Follow Us on Google
State capture is a systemic form of grand corruption where private interests – oligarchs, corporations, or criminal groups – manipulate a state’s decision-making processes, laws and institutions to their own advantage. Unlike petty bribery, it shapes the rules of the game to serve narrow interests over public good. The core characteristics of state capture include influence on laws, and control of public agencies. State capture is not merely breaking rules, but setting the rules to make the theft of state assets legal. Methods of capturing the state include financial interventions in politics – financing political parties, illegal payments and bribing high-level officials, and executive influence on law-making procedures.
In Nigeria, these criteria have been fulfilled by the All Progressives Congress (APC) in its attempt to capture the state. We have seen with opened eyes how duly passed Tax Acts were manipulated and some provisions forged in order to deny the citizens their right to fair hearing in matters of taxation against them. Tax agencies were given the powers to confiscate money and property of citizens to purportedly defray the tax due to government in which the government officials are free to calculate any amount against the citizens without recourse to the courts. These tax burdens were executed against the citizens despite the suffering they are going through because of the removal of fuel subsidy and intractable insecurity under Tinubu, just to create more money for Tinubu and his family to spend.
Nigerians saw how our Electoral Act was manipulated to create room for rigging of election by APC. Section 60(3) of the Electoral Act, 2026 made provision for electronic transmission of polling units results to the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV Portal) for the collation of results. The APC- led government and National Assembly under Tinubu added a proviso that “if the electronic transmission of the result fails as a result of communication failure and it becomes impossible to transmit the result contained in Form EC8A signed and stamped by the Presiding Officer and countersigned by the candidates or polling agents where available at the polling unit, the Form EC8A shall at all times remain the primary source of collation and declaration of the result.”
This proviso for rigging was added despite assurances from the Nigerian Communications Commission, Nigeria Society of Engineers, and even the former INEC Chairman, Prof Yakubu Mahmood, that there is enough network to transmit results electronically from whichever part of the country one is transmitting from. The only reason for this proviso was to create room for state capture which would render the will of the people unnecessary in the choice of who leads them thereby negating the principle of democracy that power belongs to the people.
We are witnesses of how Tinubu single-handedly awarded a contract of N15 trillion to his family business with the Chagourys to construct the Lagos – Calabar express road without due procurement process of the law. This is to allow for primitive accumulation of wealth by this government to afford it the resources it needs to be able to buy anyone it needs to perpetuate itself in power. It is more saddening when one realises that the money used to fund these projects are all borrowed when our security requirements are not met and our officers are being killed everyday in battle.
Every Nigerian saw how Tinubu single-handedly declared a state of emergency in Rivers State without any serious security challenges and removed a sitting governor and all the elected representatives of the people. The last time the President of South Korea attempted to suspend the Constitution and impose martial law on the people with the consequence of removing elected representatives of the people, the legislature, which is the custodian of democracy, resisted him, removed him from office, ordered his arrest and trial, and sentenced him to prison for life. This is a country that rejected state capture by its president and is growing in leaps and bounds.
Other News
Nigerian legislature on the other hand rubber-stamped the removal of elected representatives of the people of Rivers State through an illegal voice vote, which could not determine whether the required two-thirds majority of the members were gotten before the state of emergency was approved. The Supreme Court was later to hold that the President has the discretion to determine whether to suspend elected representatives in his declaration of a state of emergency. Tinubu, by that action in Rivers State, proved that he has the legislature in his pocket and exerts considerable influence on the judiciary.
The characteristics of state capture are very obvious to see, but the actions of the government towards the holding of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) convention made it more elaborate. ADC was formed around 2005. It has never come under any attack by the ruling party until it became the adopted coalition party for all opposition leaders, which include: Atiku Abubakar, Peter Obi, Rabiu Kwankwaso, Rotimi Amaechi. On seeing the unity and desire of all the opposition leaders to work together under the ADC to unseat Tinubu, APC got rattled and started unleashing the instruments of state against the ADC. It started, as always, with the misuse of judicial authority, legal manoeuvrings, and institutional capture of relevant agencies that organise elections in Nigeria.
It progressed with the surprise appearance in court of one Nafiu Gombe, a resigned member of ADC National Working Committee, who helped unveil the new executives of ADC under David Mark on July 2 2025. He was also part of the National Executive Committee (NEC) members who dissolved the NWC of ADC and ratified the new executive under David Mark on July 29 2026. He, in a major U-turn, went to court on September 2 2026 to demand that the court de-recognises David Mark as Chairman and Rauf Aregbesola as Secretary of ADC. This case needed not pass the ex-parte motion stage and would have been struck out for want of jurisdiction by the court which lacks the power to entertain any matter bordering on the internal affairs of political parties.
It is in deference to this time-tested principle that the court can suo motu raise the issue of jurisdiction to decline dabbling into a matter that it lacks jurisdiction that Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court refused to grant an ex-parte order stopping INEC from concluding its gubernatorial election in Adamawa State based on ex-parte motion brought by Senator Binani before it. Binani claimed that she was the rightful winner of the Adamawa State gubernatorial election based on the illegal declaration of the election by an INEC official who didn’t have the power by law to do it. The learned trial judge cleverly declined to grant the ex-parte order, but intelligently asked the Counsel of Binani to address the court on the issue of jurisdiction. He subsequently adjourned the suit to a later date. On the said date, the Counsel of Binani chose to withdraw the suit because they didn’t have any defence to the issue of jurisdiction, prompting the learned Judge to dismiss the suit rather than striking it out. By that action, the learned judge saved the country from avoidable crises that would have occurred in Adamawa State if he allowed Binani to use the instrumentality of an ex-parte order from him as a sword to prevent INEC from doing its legitimate duty in Adamawa State.
Unfortunately, Justice Emeka Nwite, rather than suo motu demanding from Nafiu Bala Gombe to address it on whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain his suit bordering on internal affairs of a political party, decided to embark on voyage of discovery to put the other party on notice. For the avoidance of doubt, even the Court of Appeal, suo motu, demanded that the counsel address it on whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the matter of the interlocutory appeal brought before it without first obtaining its leave. Based on this, it declined jurisdiction.
It is utterly ridiculous that Prof Joash Amupitan would cite a non existent order of COA to de-recognise the leadership of ADC and even declare that the party should not continue with its convention, which the party had given the INEC the required 21 days’ notice and for which INEC had accepted and given a go-ahead for the convention to take place. Immediately INEC took this action to become an obstacle to the convention of ADC, the APC became its spokesperson to support the move. To confirm that it was APC that ordered Amupitan to take the action of de-recognising David Mark, the APC Federal Capital Territory Minister refused to allow ADC to use any of the public venues which by law they are entitled to use. Even the private venue ADC obtained for the convention was intimidated to disallow ADC from using the venue. It actually did disallow ADC from using the garden but for the insistence on using it by ADC citing contractual obligations on the parties. The power source was cut off to discourage ADC from using the venue but the members went ahead.
The convention was done and dusted with the ratification of the leadership of David Mark and all the executives of ADC. This is what INEC was commissioned to abort by APC and which it failed woefully to do. This INEC action was to confirm that APC had completed its quest for state capture but which failed due to the vigilance and resilience of the Nigerian people. INEC wanted to ensure that Tinubu runs unopposed in 2027 elections, but this was resisted by the people. The only antidote to state capture is eternal vigilance of the Nigerian people. Nigerians must continue to square up against despots and dictators who want to foist a one-party state on Nigeria.
