By Ladi Ayodeji
A democracy does not collapse only when soldiers seize power. It can also be weakened when the judiciary becomes entangled in partisan battles and courtrooms are used as extensions of political campaigns. Nigeria has experienced this danger before, and the warning signs are beginning to reappear.
The June 12, 1993 presidential election remains one of the most painful reminders of how judicial manipulation can undermine the will of the people. A controversial court order obtained by the Association for Better Nigeria (ABN), led by Arthur Nzeribe, provided legal cover for the military regime of General Ibrahim Babangida to annul an election widely believed to have been won by Chief M.K.O. Abiola. That decision did not merely cancel an election; it plunged the nation into years of political uncertainty and distrust.
Three decades later, concerns about judicial interference are resurfacing as the country prepares for the 2027 general election. Opposition parties have increasingly found themselves battling injunctions, deregistration threats, and other legal actions capable of disrupting their political activities. The ADC and, more recently, the NDC have become central to this controversy.
Opposition leaders insist that the ruling APC is benefiting from, or even encouraging, these legal challenges. No conclusive evidence has been presented to prove such allegations. However, the pattern of court interventions has created a perception that the opposition is being weakened through judicial processes rather than through the ballot box. In politics, perception can be almost as damaging as proven misconduct.
The timing of some of these rulings has particularly raised eyebrows. When a court moves against a political party after candidate lists have already been submitted to INEC, questions naturally arise about fairness, proportionality, and the broader implications for electoral credibility. Whether legally defensible or not, such decisions risk deepening public suspicion that the judiciary is becoming a battlefield for political interests.
If the ruling party is indeed interfering in the internal affairs of opposition parties, it would be a grave mistake. Any victory secured under a cloud of perceived judicial manipulation would leave the eventual winner with a fractured mandate and diminished moral authority. A credible election is not measured only by who wins; it is measured by whether the public believes the contest was fair.
This is why caution is urgently required from all major political actors, especially those who control the instruments of government. President Bola Tinubu, as leader of the Republic, must ensure that opposition parties are given a genuine opportunity to compete. His own ascent to power was made possible by a democratic environment in which opposition forces were allowed to organise freely and challenge an incumbent administration. That same democratic space must be preserved today.
The judiciary also has a duty to protect its independence. Leaders of both the Bar and the Bench must confront the growing problem of conflicting judgments from courts of coordinate jurisdiction. Nigerians should never again witness the kind of judicial recklessness that accompanied the annulment of June 12. The nation paid too high a price for that institutional failure.
At the same time, the opposition cannot absolve itself of responsibility. Many opposition leaders defected into parties already burdened by leadership disputes and internal crises. Greater political due diligence might have led them toward more stable platforms capable of sustaining a united challenge against the ruling party. A fragmented opposition built around competing ambitions is unlikely to inspire public confidence.
The APC itself provides a useful lesson. Before the 2015 general election, several opposition parties set aside their differences and merged around a single objective: defeating the incumbent government and electing Muhammadu Buhari. That unity was a major factor in the APC’s success. Today’s opposition has yet to demonstrate a similar level of strategic cohesion.
Finally, the National Judicial Council (NJC) must act decisively against judicial misconduct. Judges who issue questionable injunctions or repeatedly deliver rulings overturned by superior courts should be subjected to appropriate scrutiny. Allegations of corruption within the judiciary must also be investigated thoroughly. Public confidence in the courts is essential to the survival of Nigeria’s democracy.
The body language of some overzealous APC figures has unfortunately reinforced opposition claims that the ruling party benefits from these legal battles. Whether those perceptions are accurate or not, the APC leadership should reassure Nigerians through both words and actions that no opposition party will be unfairly excluded from the democratic process.
Nigeria stands at an important crossroads. The lessons of June 12 should not merely be remembered during anniversaries; they should guide the conduct of our political leaders, judges, and institutions. Democracy can survive fierce competition, heated campaigns, and even bitter disagreements. What it cannot survive is a judiciary that becomes an instrument of partisan warfare.
If we allow judicial anarchy to replace electoral competition, we may discover too late that the greatest threat to our democracy did not come from outside the system, but from the misuse of the very institutions created to protect it.
Ladi Ayodeji, marriage counselor, author, media expert and philosopher, can be reached on 09059243004, WhatsApp only.