Why Legal Strategy Matters in Nigerian Politics More Than Rhetoric
Political leadership is not built on loud rhetoric alone. It also requires a sound understanding of the law, strategic planning, and the wisdom to avoid avoidable mistakes. When political actors ignore legal advice or fail to appreciate the consequences of their actions, they often blame others for problems they created themselves.
A notable example dates back to 2018 when the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the All Progressives Congress (APC) approved the extension of the tenure of the party's National Working Committee led by Chief John Odigie-Oyegun, along with state executive committees across the federation, to supervise preparations for the 2019 general elections.
However, senior legal minds within the party reportedly raised serious constitutional concerns. Then Vice President Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), was among those said to have advised that the decision posed significant legal risks. His position was that allowing unelected executives whose tenure had effectively expired to conduct party primaries could expose every nomination to legal challenges, potentially threatening APC victories from state legislative seats to the presidency.
Following further consultations and legal reviews, President Muhammadu Buhari and the APC leadership accepted the concerns. The party subsequently reversed course by conducting a national convention that produced a new National Working Committee led by Adams Oshiomhole, thereby avoiding what many analysts believed could have triggered widespread post-election litigation.
Looking back, one can argue that without such legal intervention, the APC might have faced devastating consequences, potentially handing electoral victories to the opposition through the courts rather than the ballot box.
This raises broader questions about the quality of strategic thinking within Nigeria's opposition politics in recent years.
Since the 2022 electoral cycle, critics have repeatedly questioned the decisions made by some opposition leaders. Personalities such as Dino Melaye, Kenneth Okonkwo, Aisha Yesufu, and others have become influential voices within opposition movements. Yet, critics argue that media visibility does not always translate into sound political judgment or legal foresight.
The experience of the APC in Rivers State remains another frequently cited example. In 2018, court orders restrained the faction led by former Rivers State Governor Rotimi Amaechi from conducting party congresses. Despite the legal disputes, the congresses proceeded, resulting in prolonged litigation that eventually prevented the APC from fielding candidates in the 2019 general elections in Rivers State.
The consequence was severe. The party effectively lost the opportunity to participate in key elections in one of Nigeria's most politically significant states. Internal divisions involving elected lawmakers and party stakeholders further weakened the APC's position.
Ironically, critics now point to the fact that Amaechi has become one of the leading figures in opposition coalition efforts, arguing that his previous experience should have made him more cautious about navigating legal and internal party disputes.
Similar arguments have also been made regarding other politicians who openly challenged court processes or dismissed judicial pronouncements, only to later accuse President Bola Ahmed Tinubu whenever legal decisions went against them.
Political history offers several examples where the courts have nullified entire electoral victories because political parties failed to comply with electoral laws. Zamfara State remains perhaps the most famous example. In 2019, the Supreme Court voided all APC victories in the state after finding that the party failed to conduct valid primaries in accordance with the law. The ruling demonstrated that electoral laws apply equally regardless of political influence or party affiliation.
As fresh legal battles continue to surround emerging political coalitions ahead of the 2027 elections, questions are once again being raised about whether some opposition leaders have adequately considered the legal status of the political platforms they seek to adopt. Critics argue that joining parties already entangled in leadership disputes and ongoing litigation could expose candidates to unnecessary legal uncertainty.
Supporters may view such decisions as bold political moves, while opponents see them as avoidable strategic errors that could ultimately undermine electoral ambitions.
In politics, perception matters, but legality matters even more. Electoral victories are secured not only at campaign rallies but also through strict compliance with constitutional provisions, the Electoral Act, party constitutions, and judicial pronouncements.
Ultimately, the recurring lesson in Nigerian politics is simple: ignoring legal advice rarely ends well. Those who fail to learn from history often find themselves blaming opponents for consequences arising from their own strategic miscalculations.
As an old Urhobo proverb reminds us: "It is better to have a thief than to have a fool." While the saying is intentionally provocative, its underlying message is that poor judgment can sometimes inflict greater damage than deliberate wrongdoing.
0 Comments