by Olaitan Babatunde
The accusation by the African Democratic Congress that Independent National Electoral Commission refused to monitor its convention is one of those stories that looks small at first glance but carries heavy implications if you sit with it long enough. According to the party, INEC’s absence from its national convention was not just an administrative decision but a sign of bias and a breach of its duty under the Electoral Act. The party went further to suggest that such actions could undermine opposition politics and weaken trust in the electoral process. Now, whether you agree with ADC or not, the real issue here is not the complaint itself. It is what it says about the state of Nigeria’s democratic infrastructure.
In any functioning democracy, the electoral body is expected to behave like a referee. Neutral, present, and difficult to accuse of picking sides. The moment that perception cracks, everything else begins to shake. Elections are not just about voting. They are about trust in the system that manages the process. If a political party begins to feel that the referee is not even showing up to observe the game, then the suspicion naturally follows. And in Nigeria, suspicion spreads faster than official clarification. Before long, what could have been a procedural disagreement turns into a broader narrative about bias, fairness and who the system is really working for.
Of course, there is another side to this story that cannot be ignored. INEC does not operate in a vacuum. There are legal interpretations, court cases, internal decisions and sometimes logistical realities that shape its actions. It is possible that the commission had reasons for its absence that go beyond what the public is currently hearing. But here is the problem. In a climate where trust is already fragile, silence or unclear communication does not help. It creates space for political actors to define the narrative themselves. And political actors rarely waste such opportunities.
There is also a pattern emerging in Nigeria’s political environment that makes this situation even more sensitive. Opposition parties have increasingly complained about shrinking political space, institutional obstacles and uneven playing fields. At the same time, the ruling party continues to expand its influence across states and political structures. When you combine these two developments, every action by an institution like INEC begins to carry more weight than it normally should. Even a single decision can be interpreted as part of a larger political direction, whether that interpretation is accurate or not.
So the real question is not whether INEC was right or wrong in this specific instance. The real question is whether Nigeria’s electoral system still inspires enough confidence across political divides. Because once that confidence starts to erode, democracy does not collapse immediately. It simply becomes less convincing. Parties participate, elections are held, results are announced, but the belief in fairness begins to fade. And when that happens, the referee might still be on the field, but half the players no longer trust the whistle.
