By Eculaw
Introduction:
A contentious political struggle has erupted in Nigeria, centering on Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and Senate President Godswill Akpabio. Allegations of underhanded tactics, institutional bias, and legal manipulation dominate the discourse, raising urgent questions about the integrity of Nigeria’s electoral processes and the rule of law. At the heart of the controversy is the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), accused of enabling a campaign to undermine Akpoti-Uduaghan while favoring Akpabio, a figure portrayed as wielding undue influence.
INEC’s Questionable Neutrality:
INEC, Nigeria’s electoral body tasked with ensuring fair democratic processes, faces sharp criticism for its handling of a petition to recall Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan. Initially, the commission appeared to uphold procedural standards by rejecting the petition due to noncompliance with guidelines. However, this gesture of neutrality quickly unraveled. Critics argue that INEC subsequently permitted petitioners to retroactively “cure” fatal flaws in their submission—a move likened to allowing “piecemeal amendments” to an invalid application. This decision, seen as a breach of protocol, has fueled accusations that INEC is facilitating a politically motivated agenda.
A Double Standard in Procedure:
The controversy deepened when INEC attempted to serve Akpoti-Uduaghan a recall notice via social media, bypassing established protocols. This stands in stark contrast to its approach in the 2017 case involving Senator Dino Melaye. At the time, INEC sought a court order for substituted service after failing to physically serve Melaye, adhering strictly to legal requirements. The discrepancy in treatment between the two cases has drawn outrage, with observers questioning why Akpoti-Uduaghan is being subjected to irregular methods. Legal experts argue that such actions not only undermine due process but also set a dangerous precedent for targeting political opponents through institutional complicity.
The Broader Implications for Nigerian Democracy:
The escalating conflict transcends personal rivalries. If powerful figures like Akpabio can weaponize institutions like INEC to sideline opponents, Nigeria’s democratic foundations risk erosion. Akpoti-Uduaghan’s supporters warn that allowing her recall to proceed under dubious circumstances would signal open season on dissenters, entrenching a culture where “might overrules right.” This precedent could destabilize Nigeria’s political landscape, discouraging accountability and emboldening impunity among the elite.
A Call for Vigilance:
Civil society groups and legal advocates urge Nigerians to scrutinize INEC’s actions, emphasizing that electoral bodies must remain impartial arbiters, not tools of political warfare. The Akpoti-Uduaghan case tests Nigeria’s commitment to the rule of law—a principle already strained by systemic corruption and power imbalances. As public trust in institutions wanes, the consequences of perceived bias could reverberate far beyond this singular dispute, weakening citizen faith in democracy itself.
Conclusion:
The battle over Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s recall is more than a political skirmish; it is a litmus test for Nigeria’s democratic resilience. INEC’s role, under intense scrutiny, must be held to the highest standards of transparency and fairness. For Nigeria to avert a deeper crisis of legitimacy, its institutions must reject coercion and uphold justice—not for the powerful, but for the people.
NOTE:
This article reflects growing concerns over Nigeria’s democratic integrity, underscoring the urgent need for institutional accountability in safeguarding the nation’s political future.
