Okoi Obono-Obla and the Pathology of Selective Outrage: A Thorough Rebuttal

By khaleed Yazeed

Okoi Obono-Obla, you have written an article that attempts to dress political convenience in the robes of legal principle. But robes do not hide the shape of the body beneath. And your body of argument is bent in favor of the ruling party. You present yourself as a neutral legal analyst, but your history as a former presidential aide under the Buhari administration and your open alignment with the APC betray the pretense. This is not legal scholarship. This is advocacy with footnotes.

You begin by framing INEC’s refusal to recognize any ADC faction as mere compliance with a court order. But you omit a critical detail: the Court of Appeal did not order INEC to freeze the party. The court ordered the parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum. That means return to the state before the conflict. Before the conflict, the ADC had a functioning leadership structure. Before the conflict, the party was registered and recognized. INEC did not return to that state. They created a new state: no leadership, no recognition, no party. That is not compliance. That is interpretation by amputation. You know the difference. You are simply hoping your readers do not.

You invoke Section 83 of the Electoral Act as if it is an insurmountable barrier. The section states that INEC must monitor party conventions. It does not state that INEC can refuse to monitor a convention and then declare that convention invalid. The commission has a duty to monitor. If they refuse to fulfill that duty, the party cannot be held responsible. You cannot starve a man and then blame him for eating from a bin. The ADC did not choose to hold a convention without INEC. INEC chose not to show up. That is a failure of the regulator, not the regulated. Your argument blames the victim for the negligence of the police.

You warn that the David Mark faction risks holding an invalid convention. But what is the alternative? To wait indefinitely while INEC does nothing? To sit on their hands while the electoral calendar ticks toward 2027? To watch their party wither because a commission appointed by the president they oppose has decided to look away? That is not patience. That is surrender. And you know that any political party that surrenders its right to act is a party that has chosen extinction. You are advising the ADC to die slowly rather than take a risk. That is not legal counsel. That is political euthanasia.

You speak of credibility and legitimacy. Let us talk about credibility. Where was your voice when INEC declared APC candidates winners in Zamfara in 2019 despite the party having no valid primaries? The Supreme Court had to step in and nullify those elections. INEC did not self-correct. They did not volunteer to obey the law. They were dragged. Where was your article then? Where was your concern for Section 83 when APC conducted primaries in clear violation of court orders in Rivers State? INEC looked away. The courts had to force compliance. You were silent. Your silence then and your voice now tell us everything about the selective nature of your legal conscience.

You suggest the David Mark faction should seek judicial clarification. Let us examine that advice. The Nigerian judiciary, for all its independence, operates on timelines that do not favor opposition parties. A case that begins today could easily stretch past 2027. By the time any clarification is obtained, the election would have come and gone. The ruling party knows this. The opposition knows this. And you know this. So when you advise litigation, you are not offering a solution. You are offering a delay tactic disguised as legal prudence. The courts are not a shortcut for the opposition. They are a labyrinth. And you are pointing them toward the entrance while knowing the exit is miles away.

You call for dialogue with INEC. What dialogue? The same INEC that has already made its position clear? The same commission that has shown no willingness to engage the ADC on equal terms? Dialogue requires two willing parties. INEC has shown no willingness. They have issued a directive and retreated behind the walls of legal jargon. You cannot have a conversation with a wall. And you cannot negotiate with an institution that has already decided to treat your party as a corpse. Your advice is not pragmatic. It is performative. It sounds reasonable to those who do not understand the power dynamics. But those who have lived through Nigerian electoral cycles know that dialogue with INEC, when you are the opposition, is a monologue where only one side is heard.

You call for internal reconciliation within the ADC. This is the most frustrating of your suggestions. How do you reconcile when the external environment has been weaponized against you? How do you bring two factions together when the regulator has declared that neither faction will be recognized regardless of what they do? The commission has removed any incentive for compromise. If both sides will be treated the same whether they fight or unite, why would they unite? You have created a situation where division is costless and unity is pointless. Then you blame the divided party for not coming together. That is not analysis. That is cynicism dressed as concern.

Let me be clear about what is happening. The APC is afraid of the ADC. Not because the ADC is powerful today, but because it has the potential to become a formidable opposition by 2027. The coalition that includes Peter Obi, Kwankwaso, and David Mark represents a threat that the ruling party cannot ignore. So they have used the instrument of the state to disable that threat before it can grow. INEC is the tool. The court order is the excuse. And you, Okoi Obono-Obla, are the apologist. You are writing briefs for a strategy that has nothing to do with law and everything to do with power.

The ADC may have internal problems. The David Mark faction may have made strategic errors. But none of that justifies the systematic strangulation of a political party by the very commission meant to protect the democratic process. A referee who punches one boxer while the other is free to fight is not a referee. He is a participant. And INEC has punched the ADC repeatedly while standing still for the APC. That is not neutrality. That is complicity. And your article, however polished, is a defense of that complicity.

You have written many words. But you have not answered the simplest question: if INEC is so committed to the rule of law, why have they not applied the same standard to the APC when the APC violated electoral laws? Why is it that only opposition parties face the full weight of regulatory enforcement? Why is it that the ruling party is given time to appeal, to negotiate, to correct, while the opposition is given deadlines and ultimatums? Until you answer these questions, your article is not a legal analysis. It is a political pamphlet. And pamphlets do not persuade. They only preach to the choir.

Okoi Obono-Obla, you have written a brief for the prosecution. But you forgot that in a democracy, the opposition is not the enemy. It is the alternative. And when you use the law to eliminate alternatives, you are not defending democracy. You are burying it. The ADC may still rise. But if they do, it will be despite your advice, not because of it.