INEC’s regulatory abdication and the shrinking democratic space

The recent meeting between the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the factional leaderships of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), held in response to the party’s internal crisis, represents not conflict management but regulatory abdication. Not surprisingly, it achieved nothing substantive because it could achieve nothing substantive. INEC was wrong to have even held that […]

The recent meeting between the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the factional leaderships of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), held in response to the party’s internal crisis, represents not conflict management but regulatory abdication. Not surprisingly, it achieved nothing substantive because it could achieve nothing substantive.

INEC was wrong to have even held that meeting. A regulator does not convene warring factions to dialogue their way out of breaches of law; it enforces compliance! Anything short of that signals weakness, confusion of role or even worse.

2. INEC is not a mediator, a reconciliatory committee or a peace-building NGO. It is a constitutional and statutory regulatory agency, armed with clear powers under the constitution, the Electoral Act and its own guidelines. When internal party processes collapse, when congresses are disputed, when parallel executives emerge, neither the law nor common sense requires INEC to host joint meetings of antagonistic factions. What is required is for INEC to determine compliance, recognise legality and apply sanctions where necessary.
3. By sitting both factions together “to strengthen compliance,” INEC blurred the line between regulation and appeasement. Compliance is not strengthened through appeals to unity; it is strengthened through predictable enforcement. Regulatory credibility rests on certainty, not conversation. A referee who calls the players together to plead for fair play instead of enforcing the rules invites chaos, not order.
4. If this is the governing philosophy of the new INEC leadership, then Nigerians should temper their expectations. Electoral integrity cannot be built on soft persuasion where firm authority is required. Political parties are not voluntary associations operating by goodwill; they are legal entities governed by enforceable rules. When INEC substitutes decisiveness with diplomacy, it emboldens impunity and rewards disorder.
5. This failure of regulatory clarity becomes even more troubling when viewed alongside INEC’s recent refusal to register new political parties, despite the fact that several political associations – most notably the All Democratic Alliance (ADA) – have demonstrably fulfilled all constitutional and statutory requirements for registration. The law is unambiguous: where requirements are met, registration is not a favour; it is an obligation. INEC lacks discretionary powers on this matter; it is compulsory. INEC’s inaction and silence on this crucial issue amount to an administrative veto not contemplated by law. The consequence is the systematic closure of Nigeria’s political space, denying citizens the right to organise freely and offering voters a shrinking menu of political choices.
6. This strategy mirrors the long-standing preference of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) for a constricted party system; one that limits competition, suppresses alternatives and entrenches incumbency advantage. The commission’s posture, whether by design or acquiescence, invariably advances incumbent’s agenda. When a supposedly independent umpire makes choices that favour the status quo, questions of institutional independence inevitably arise.
7. Taken together, the indulgent handling of PDP crises and the refusal to register qualified new parties, specifically the ADA – the pattern is unmistakable. The new INEC leadership appears less concerned with expanding democratic participation and more preoccupied with managing political outcomes. This is dangerous. Democracy does not die only through rigged elections or military coups; it also dies through administrative strangulation and regulatory cowardice.
8. If the new INEC leadership is serious about restoring confidence and strengthening party politics, it must then follow the available clearer and more effective paths of enforcing the law and not negotiating it.
9. Where party constitutions are violated, congresses improperly conducted or executives illegally constituted, INEC should be issuing binding determinations based strictly on compliance. Sanctions, including refusal to recognise illegitimate party officers or candidates, must be applied consistently. Also, the commission must create clear public compliance benchmarks. INEC should publish transparent criteria and timelines for resolving party disputes and for party registration, so that outcomes are predictable and not subject to discretion or suspicion.
10. It should similarly register all qualified political associations. Political pluralism is not a threat to democracy; it is its lifeblood. INEC must reopen the political space by registering all associations that meet the legal requirements, without fear or favour. Also, INEC must maintain institutional distance from party infighting by resisting the temptation to become a conflict-resolution forum for political parties. Its role is to regulate outcomes, not to reconcile interests. It should be seen demonstrating its independence through action, not rhetoric. INEC’s independence is not proclaimed; it is proven. It must show, through difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions, that it is accountable only to the constitution and the law – not to incumbents or political convenience.
11. Nigeria’s democracy is already fragile. It cannot survive a regulator that hesitates where firmness is required, or that narrows political choice under the guise of administrative discretion. If INEC continues down this path, history will not judge it as a neutral umpire, but as a quiet accomplice in the erosion of democratic competition. A commission that walks this path should not be surprised when disorder becomes the norm.

Umar Ardo, Ph.D wrote from Abuja