By Ebuka Ukoh
Abstract/excerpt
Electoral authorities must remain impartial, applying consistent legal standards to both governing and opposition parties. The primary objective of electoral law is to safeguard the citizen’s right to participate in a lawful, competitive election whose outcome reflects their true vote.
As Israel’s opposition receives an opportunity to form a government, Nigeria confronts a judicial ruling threatening the participation of a major opposition party in an election less than 80 days away. Notice it or not, there is something profoundly instructive about what happened in Israel on November 7, 2026.
After an election in which neither major political bloc secured a parliamentary majority, Israeli President Isaac Herzog gave opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot the first opportunity to form a government. Not Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister. Not the incumbent simply because he already occupies the office. But the opposition leader whom more elected lawmakers recommended for the task.
Eisenkot received the backing of factions representing 67 members of the Knesset or parliament, compared with 46 supporting Netanyahu. He has not yet become prime minister. Forming a government will require difficult negotiations, compromises and sufficient parliamentary support. However, the significance of the moment extends far beyond who eventually succeeds.
Political power belongs to institutions and the people they represent, not permanently to those who currently occupy office.
Now, consider Nigeria.
Less than 80 days before the 2027 general elections, a Federal High Court has annulled the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) under former Senate President David Mark and voided its candidate nominations, including the presidential ticket of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar. The party has indicated its intention to appeal.
Two countries. Different constitutional systems. Different political circumstances. Yet both developments invite us to examine a fundamental democratic question: how do we ensure that political competition remains meaningful when power, institutions, and the ambitions of political actors collide?
Israel’s Opposition as Legit Alternative
Israel’s parliamentary system differs significantly from Nigeria’s presidential system. Israelis elect members of the Parliament, and a government must command sufficient parliamentary support. The president assigns the task of forming a government to a member of parliament considered capable of assembling a coalition.
The November election left Netanyahu’s bloc without its previous majority, while Eisenkot’s bloc also fell short. The result placed negotiations among political parties at the centre of government formation.
Some parties have profound disagreements over security, religion, the war in Gaza, and the participation of Arab-led parties in government. There is no guarantee that Eisenkot will succeed. But the process demonstrates something vital: an incumbent’s continued hold on office is subject to constitutional arrangements, electoral outcomes, and the ability to command political support.
The opposition is not an enemy of the state. It is a legitimate participant in determining who governs. This does not make Israel’s democracy immune from criticism. Its political system faces serious disputes, and the country’s conduct in Gaza remains the subject of intense international scrutiny.
Nor does the president’s decision establish that Eisenkot is necessarily a better leader than Netanyahu. The lesson concerns the institutional process. A healthy democracy must leave room for political alternatives, even when those alternatives challenge powerful incumbents.
ADC Crisis: Question Too Big for One Party
On November 5, Nigeria’s Federal High Court ruled that the David Mark-led ADC caretaker leadership was unlawfully constituted. The dispute arose from competing claims over the party’s leadership and whether its internal processes complied with its constitution and electoral law.
The court consequently invalidated decisions arising from the disputed leadership, including the party’s nominations for the 2027 elections. This is not a minor administrative dispute. It concerns the core ability of a political party to present candidates to the electorate. Yet we must approach the ruling with legal discipline. Political parties are not exempt from their own constitutions. Internal democracy matters. Leadership transitions, congresses and candidate nominations must comply with applicable law.
Where members allege violations of their rights, the courts have a legitimate responsibility to adjudicate those claims. But judicial scrutiny also requires careful attention to the consequences of legal remedies, particularly when an election is rapidly approaching. The ADC has announced its intention to appeal, and the final legal position remains subject to further proceedings. The question is not whether political parties should obey the law—they must. Rather, it is how the law protects internal party rights while preserving meaningful electoral participation. Both interests deserve serious consideration.
Less Than 80 Days: Why Timing Matters
The proximity of Nigeria’s general elections makes the ADC judgement particularly consequential. Election preparations operate under strict statutory timelines. Candidates require nomination processes, documentation, campaign planning and access to electoral procedures.
Electoral authorities must prepare ballots, verify submissions and administer elections consistently with the law. Voters need sufficient time to understand who is contesting and what choices are available. A judicial decision affecting an entire party’s candidates shortly before an election therefore creates uncertainty extending far beyond the litigants.
This does not mean courts should disregard valid legal claims simply because an election is near. Nor should proximity to an election provide political parties with immunity from their own procedural failures. It means electoral disputes require timely resolution, clear legal reasoning, and remedies proportionate to established violations, strictly within the limits of the governing law.
An unresolved dispute involving a major political party risks leaving candidates, voters, and electoral administrators uncertain about available choices. Electoral justice must protect the integrity of the process without losing sight of the citizens for whom the process exists.
Opposition As Legit Institution of Democracy
Nigeria’s political discussions often reduce opposition to a mere collection of [disgruntled] personalities. Who will become the presidential candidate? Who will defect? Which politician will join another coalition? Who will control the party machinery? These questions matter politically, but the democratic importance of opposition extends well beyond individual ambitions.
Opposition parties scrutinise government decisions, challenge public policies, expose potential wrongdoing and offer competing programmes for national development. They provide citizens with genuine alternatives. That role remains crucial regardless of whether a particular opposition party enjoys widespread popularity at any given moment.
It is equally important that opposition parties practise the internal democratic principles they demand from governing institutions. Internal disagreements should be resolved through lawful and transparent procedures. Party leadership should derive its authority from legitimate processes, and candidate selection must respect applicable rules.
The Israeli experience offers an interesting point of comparison. Political parties with substantial disagreements are negotiating the possibility of cooperation because their parliamentary system requires them to assemble governing support.
For Nigeria, cooperation among opposition parties is a political option rather than a constitutional necessity. Whether parties pursue alliances or contest independently is their prerogative. But every arrangement requires credible internal governance. A coalition without clear rules for sharing authority and resolving disagreements risks carrying its internal conflicts into the very institutions it hopes to govern.
What Nigerian Judiciary Must Protect
There is often a temptation, whenever a politically significant judgement emerges, to assume either blanket judicial interference or infallible judicial wisdom. Neither assumption is responsible. Courts must remain fiercely independent of political pressure, resting their decisions on law, evidence, and the claims properly before them. Concurrently, judicial decisions remain open to robust legal criticism, and appellate review remains an essential safeguard.
The ADC case raises questions deserving careful public examination. Were the party’s leadership procedures lawful? What rights did the disputing members possess? What was the appropriate legal consequence of any established violation? How should the interests of nominated candidates and voters be treated? And what effect, if any, should an appeal have on election preparations? These questions require rigorous legal answers rather than partisan political speculation.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) must also act consistently with valid court orders and the applicable electoral framework. Its fundamental responsibility is to administer elections impartially, not to determine which political party deserves an advantage. The credibility of electoral justice depends on whether the exact same legal standards apply to every political actor—governing parties, opposition parties, and individuals challenging their own party leadership alike.
People’s Verdict Must Remain Central
The most significant distinction between Israel and Nigeria remains constitutional. In Israel, the president’s assignment begins a process through which parliamentary parties attempt to establish a government. In Nigeria, voters directly elect the president under strict constitutional rules governing the presidential contest. We should not confuse the two systems. Yet both ultimately depend on meaningful political competition and institutions capable of translating electoral choices into legitimate governance.
For Nigeria, the paramount question is whether citizens will have a credible opportunity to evaluate competing candidates and programmes in 2027. An election is far more than a scheduled calendar event; it is the primary process through which citizens exercise sovereign political authority. The fairness of that process depends on lawful candidate selection, the equal application of electoral rules, unhindered voter access, security, credible administration, and effective dispute resolution.
No single party possesses an automatic right to appear on the ballot regardless of legal requirements. But neither should the electoral process become unnecessarily restrictive through avoidable procedural uncertainty or inconsistent institutional conduct. The ultimate purpose of electoral law is to protect democratic choice through rules that command universal respect.
What Nigeria Must Learn Before January 2027
Israel’s latest political developments do not provide Nigeria with a ready-made constitutional template. Instead, they offer a vital question about the place of political alternatives in a democracy. Can institutions accommodate changes in political power without treating them as existential threats to the state? Can political parties negotiate differences without abandoning their principles? Can courts resolve electoral disputes independently and within timelines that preserve legal certainty?
Can governing parties accept scrutiny without treating opposition as disloyalty? And can opposition parties demonstrate the internal accountability they demand from the government? These are shared responsibilities across the entire political ecosystem. The judiciary must uphold the law; INEC must administer it impartially; political parties must organise themselves lawfully; civil society must scrutinise the process independently; and citizens must have reliable information about their choices. The ADC dispute deserves a fair, expeditious legal resolution based strictly on applicable law rather than political calculations.
Less than 80 days before Nigeria’s general elections, this is the principle worth defending: not the entitlement of any single politician, not the permanent dominance of any one party, and not the assumption that opposition must always prevail. Rather, it is the sacred right of Nigerians to participate in a lawful, competitive election whose outcome authentically reflects their votes. Political power must remain contestable, electoral rules must remain credible, and the people’s verdict must remain decisive.
*Ukoh, a PhD student and coauthor of Built By The Ancestors, writes from his base in New York, the United States.
