Follow Us on Google
By Lawrence Agbo
A legal practitioner, Opatola Victor, has warned that the actions of Nigeria’s electoral body, Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC) risk undermining political party autonomy and weakening the foundation of free and fair elections, amid ongoing controversies within the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
Speaking during an interview on ARISE NEWS on Thursday, Opatola criticised INEC’s handling of internal party disputes, arguing that the commission had overstepped its regulatory mandate by assuming a role reserved for the judiciary.
He said INEC’s decision to interpret issues surrounding party leadership, including the controversial “Thetosko” reference, amounted to acting as a court.
According to him, such interpretation should strictly be left to the judiciary, particularly the Court of Appeal.
“In this particular instance, the mere fact that INEC chose to interpret, you know, what and decide what Thetosko is, it has ventured and stepped into the role of a judicial body, which is the court, which is wrong as an independent auditor.”
Opatola also suggested that the pattern of internal crises across opposition parties raises concerns about political interference, noting that such disputes often weaken parties seen as threats to the ruling government.
On the use of technical legal terms like “Thetosko Antebellum,” he faulted the courts for failing to provide clear interpretations, stressing that ambiguity fuels confusion and unnecessary litigation.
“When court gives its decision and use the word Thetosko, the court should endeavour to give clarity as to what it means by Thetosko Antebellum.
“From now, courts will decide these issues, will speak as to Thetosko Antebellum, should give clarity, should even go further than just drop this technical legal language. Should go further to give clarity and be exact as to what exactly is Thetosko Antebellum, and it will save the whole country, racking their heads to determine where the Thetosko Antebellum is or what exactly the Thetosko Antebellum is,” he added.
Other News
He maintained that INEC ought to have returned to the Court of Appeal for clarification rather than taking a definitive position, especially given the limited timeframe for the ADC to conduct its primaries before the May 30 deadline.
“What INEC ought to do was go back to the Court of Appeal for the court to determine what the Thetosko is, The ADC have a limited time to conduct their Congress. They have until 30th of May to conduct their primaries. So, going to Court of Appeal to get an interpretation, it would definitely take time.”
Addressing leadership disputes within the party, Opatola emphasised that the burden of proof lies with individuals making allegations, such as claims of forgery or wrongful resignation.
He further warned that recent decisions by INEC have eroded public trust in the electoral process, adding that confidence in the commission has continued to decline since the last general elections.
While reacting to protests targeting the INEC chairman, Opatola advised that grievances should be channelled through legal means or the National Assembly, rather than direct confrontation.
“The protest should be directed at the National Assembly and also channelled via the court. Okay, directing this ventilation to the AINEC chairman, you know, giving our, it wouldn’t really work, you know.”
He also called on the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, to establish clear guidelines on what constitutes internal party affairs, arguing that this would reduce the flood of litigation and ease the burden on the courts.
Opatola concluded that the ADC must return to the courts for proper interpretation, insisting that INEC’s вмешation has placed unnecessary constraints on the party and complicated an already sensitive dispute.
“The ADC have a limited time to conduct their Congress. They have until 30th of May to conduct their primaries. So, going to Court of Appeal to get an interpretation, it would definitely take time.”
“So, the mere fact that INEC did what it did, it has placed a constraint on parties and it has ventured into a role it ought not to venture into.”
