Opposition and Averting the Dangers of Recycled Leadership

The Advocate

By Onikepo Braithwaite

Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com

Today’s Nigerian Politician: Cut from the Same Recycled Cloth

Life, they say, can be truly funny! As we enter the pre-election season, it is apposite for us to not only examine those who are offering up themselves to actively participate in the next electoral cycle, but to take a look at issues that may be justiciable as pre-election matters at the Federal High Court (FHC), or intra-party disputes leading up to political party primaries. For those who have served in office in one capacity or the other before, how did they perform? What legacy did they leave behind, that entitles them to another sit at the table? 

It is important that Nigerians also become students of history, remembering the antecedents of all these Politicians, who are mostly cut from the same recycled cloth.

ADC/Rtd Brigadier General ‘Senator’ David Mark

I saw one of the main headlines of This Day Newspaper of Friday, April 10, 2026, about Rtd Brigadier General ‘Senator’ David Mark, the embattled Chairman of African Democratic Congress (ADC), going to court to insist that INEC reverse their de-recognition of them, following the Court of Appeal ruling that ADC return to status quo ante bellum. 

How ironic! If only the military regime in which Brigadier General David Mark had been a high ranking member (a standing he may now deny, for obvious reasons), had given Chief M.K.O. Abiola, GCFR, the same fighting chance to go to court to claim his mandate, and allow him to be sworn in as President of Nigeria following his victory at the June 12, 1993 polls, Nigeria’s trajectory may have been better than it has been. Unfortunately, the soldiers didn’t reverse their own decision. We think we can make our own misdeeds disappear with the wave of a magic wand of denial, while we focus on the perceived shortcomings of others, because theirs may be more recent and apparent, and ours, forgotten with time, thereby drawing the attention away from ourselves. 

We Nigerians forget too easily. According to Professor Omo Omoruyi in his 1999 Book titled “The Tale of June 12: The Betrayal of the Democratic Rights of Nigerians”, in his narrative about the June 12 events, he claimed that General Babangida, the then Nigerian Military Head of State ‘unburdened’ himself to him, alleging that General Babangida had said that his ‘Boys’ didn’t want Chief Abiola to be President, and that Brigadier General David Mark had said something about shooting Chief Abiola, if the National Electoral Commission (as INEC was called then) declared him as President! Of course, there are many more betrayers of the June 12 mandate, still well hidden.

Since there were no phone video/audio recording footages in those days, and it is unlikely that we can verify the authenticity of Professor Omoruyi’s statement, again for obvious reasons, but, what we do know is that Chief Abiola was never sworn in as President of Nigeria, nor did he ever return home alive to his family, from his prolonged detention. And, of course, there were many conspiracy theories concerning Chief Abiola’s death, the most prominent of them – that he didn’t die from natural causes. 

While I’m not saying that President Tinubu is the best thing after sliced bread, because he is not, or that the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) loves Nigerians more than ADC, all I’m saying is that, it is important for us to also consider the trajectory of those prominent members of the opposition just as carefully as the incumbent, as they could end up as the incumbent in future. After all, in 2014, the APC was the opposition, but, today, they are the ruling party. In any event, every single top member of the ADC is part and parcel of Nigeria’s failure. They all occupied prime positions at one time or the other, some for over 20 years, almost throughout the 26+ years Fourth Republic. 

Senate President David Mark

As a ‘born again Politician’ in PDP, Senator David Mark is the longest serving Senate President in the Fourth Republic, serving for 8 years, overseeing the 6th and 7th National Assembly. In 2010, he midwifed the First Amendment to the Constitution, assented to in 2011, addressing issues such as institutional reforms and electoral timelines. He also invoked the Doctrine of Necessity for Vice President Jonathan to act when President Yar’Adua was critically ill, so that there wouldn’t be a leadership vacuum. A good number of Bills were passed (about 90 & 120 Bills respectively in the 6th & 7th Assembly), including the Electoral Act 2010, Terrorism Act, Freedom of Information Act and AMCON Act. He brought stability, to the National Assembly. Nevertheless, his tenure was criticised as not being transformative with regard to national challenges, as for instance, the Petroleum Industry Bill wasn’t passed in his time. He was also criticised as not doing enough oversight, nor much in terms of projects in his constituency. He also had issues relating to budget padding and Panama Papers. 

As we say in Nigerian parlance, let’s ‘shine our eyes’, on all these Politicians! 

Pre-Election Matters: Have they Become Redundant?

Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 (EA) provides that an Aspirant who participated in the primaries and has reason to suspect that the Candidate who emerged from the primaries, provided false information in any of his documentation concerning constitutional qualifications, may file a matter at the FHC for a declaration that the documentation is false. Now that Section 84(2) of the EA only provides for Direct Primaries and Consensus Candidates, Section 29(5) may have become redundant, as it is unlikely that this kind of pre-election matter will go to court, seeing as political parties may simply opt for the consensus candidate option, which is said to be considerably cheaper than direct primaries. 

Be that as it may, Section 29(5) of the EA would still be applicable to direct primaries, and it makes it abundantly clear that 1) the Petitioner must have partaken in the Primaries with the Respondent 2) the Petitioner must have reasonable grounds to believe that Respondent submitted false information, in respect of constitutional requirements to contest election. See Sections 65, 106, 131 and 177 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution) on constitutional qualifications and disqualifications for elective offices. 

A community reading of Sections 29(5) & 138 of the EA, evinces the fact that the EA allows consensus candidates who do not meet the constitutional qualification thresholds to move ahead unchallenged, as the old Section 134(3) of the 2022 Electoral Act allowing candidates to challenge the constitutional qualifications of other candidates in their election petitions has been deleted from the EA, while indirect primaries was deleted from Section 84(2) of the EA.

Though Section 138(3) of the EA imposes fines of N5 million  & 10 million on Counsel and Petitioners respectively, for bringing election petitions which do not meet the acceptable grounds for election petitions stated in Section 138(1) of the EA, there are no sanctions stated in the case of Section 29(5). I think it is time Lawyers face more stringent sanctions such as being brought before the Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), with punishments like suspension from practice, being unable to apply to be elevated to the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria for a specified number of years, and those who are already members of Inner Bar, suspension or removal from same etc, not just when they bring frivolous, vexatious and useless petitions to the Tribunals, but also pre-election matters and internal political party disputes that statutorily are barred from being brought. 

A Distinguishing Point in the ADC Matter

While I do not wish to delve into the subject-matter of the ADC case at this point, I am constrained to make a point. After reading my piece of last week, Learned Senior Advocate, Mr Femi Falana, referred me to Section 83(5) of the EA, which prohibits any court in Nigeria from entertaining jurisdiction over any matter concerning the internal affairs of a political party. 

With all due respect to the Learned Silk, in an Arise News Publication of April 3, 2026 which he may not have seen, the Chief of Staff to Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe, Bala Sani, claimed that the resignation letter in circulation that Hon. Gombe had resigned from his position as Deputy National Chairman of ADC, is a forgery. This effectively transformed the ADC Crisis from an internal party dispute between warring factions simpliciter – see Dahiru & Anor v APC & Ors (2016) LPELR-42089(SC) per Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC to one that involves forgery, a crime against the State that can attract up to 14 years imprisonment upon conviction – see Section 362-368 of the Penal Code Act 1960 (PCA) and C.O.P. v Anagor (2025) LPELR-82111(CA) per Eberechi Suzette Nyesom-Wike, JCA on the definition of forgery.  In fact, this matter has been so transformed into a criminal one that, if Hon. Gombe and Mr Sani are found to be lying about the resignation letter being a forgery, they themselves can be charged to court under Sections 156 & 158(1) of the PCA for giving false evidence (perjury), and face up to 7 years imprisonment or more, if convicted – see Section 160 of the PCA and Omoregie v DPP (1962) LPELR-4096(SC) per Adetokunbo Adegboyega Ademola, JSC (later CJN) on the definition of perjury. 

Therefore, it appears that as the criminal slant may have distinguished this particular ADC/Gombe matter from an internal party dispute simpliciter, the rules of the latter as provided by Section 83(5) of the EA which Mr Falana, SAN alluded to,   may not strictly apply. The criminality may have brought an exception into it. Though, in compliance, the Court of Appeal ordered accelerated hearing, as per Section 83(6) of the EA. Accelerated hearing is simply the fast-tracking of the hearing of a case, so that it is decided swiftly. See Bassey  & Ors v Ekene & Ors (2016) LPELR-42053((CA) per Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme,JCA (now JSC) on accelerated hearing. 

Conclusion 

As Nigeria edges closer to the 2027 general elections, the recurring parade of familiar faces in new party colours  from PDP and the ruling APC, to the fractious opposition ranks in the ADC and beyond – serves as a sobering reminder that our political class remains largely cut from the same recycled cloth. Rtd Brigadier General Senator David Mark and many of his contemporaries, who now position themselves as agents of change once occupied the corridors of power for decades, some throughout the entire Fourth Republic. Their records, like those of the incumbent, must be judged not by current rhetoric or court battles, but by tangible legacies left behind in governance, institutional strengthening, and national development.

Stricter professional sanctions on Lawyers who file vexatious pre-election or intra-party suits – beyond monetary fines – would strengthen enforcement and deter abuse.

Ultimately, no single law or court judgement, can cure Nigeria’s democratic deficits. Citizens must become diligent students of history, refusing convenient amnesia about past roles in national setbacks. Whether in Government or opposition, every politician offering themselves for 2027, must be subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny: What tangible difference, did their long years in office make? Have they truly evolved, or are they merely rebranded versions of the old order? Are they just telling the people what they want to hear, anything, just so that they can return to power?

Nigerians must ‘shine their eyes’ – not just at the incumbent, but at all who seek to inherit or reclaim power. True change will not come from recycled leadership in fresh wrappers, but from an electorate that demands accountability, performance, and fresh ideas across the board. The courts will adjudicate the technical disputes; the people, ultimately, must deliver the real verdict at the ballot. Well, the ability to decide at the polls, is yet another hot topic for discussion, as many Nigerians claim that their votes do not count anyway, as a result of widespread election malpractice.