The Minister of Interior, Dr. Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, has directed the Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS) to immediately withdraw and deactivate passports of Nigerians who have renounced their citizenship.

He, however, clarified that the directive applied only to Nigerians whose requests for renunciation had been formally approved by President Bola Tinubu.

The minister maintained that the Ministry of Interior, saddled with the responsibility of citizenship integrity, derives the power from the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of Section 29 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which states that: “(1) Any citizen of Nigeria of full age who wishes to renounce his Nigerian citizenship shall make a declaration in the prescribed manner for the renunciation, and (2) The President shall cause the declaration made under subsection (1) of this section to be registered and upon such registration, the person who made the declaration shall cease to be a citizen of Nigeria”.

Tunji-Ojo, in a statement by his media aide, Alao Babatunde, on Friday, added that once a person ceases to be a citizen of Nigeria, he can no longer carry any sovereign document of Nigeria, including the nation’s passport.

The minister further noted that the move was consistent with the passport and visa reforms that the ministry has undertaken within the past few years.

“We will continue to strengthen systems that secure Nigeria’s borders, prevent identity fraud, preserve the sanctity of Nigerian citizenship, and facilitate legitimate travel while preventing unauthorised or ineligible access,” the minister was quoted as saying.

The latest move by the ministry came nearly a month after the Federal Government and the United Kingdom signed agreements on migration partnership, organised immigration crime, and border security.

The agreements came during President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s state visit to the UK in March.

King Charles III and Queen Camilla stand with President Bola Tinubu and his wife, Oluremi Tinubu, on the Dias during a ceremonial welcome in the Quadrangle at Windsor Castle, in Windsor, on March 18, 2026. (Photo by Chris Jackson / POOL / AFP)

Tunji-Ojo had been quoted as saying that the deals reflected Nigeria’s push for a transparent, rules-based migration system that is safe, orderly, and mutually beneficial.

He added that they would help tackle “abuse of legal pathways” while strengthening border control.

According to him, the MoUs were also expected to enhance trade and ease business mobility, supporting the Federal Government’s broader economic ambitions.

There are governments that save for the rainy day, governments that prepare for the storm, and governments that, when the heavens open and money falls like tropical rain, rush outside with buckets full of holes. Nigeria, under President Bola Tinubu, has perfected a fourth category: the government that borrows during a windfall. It is a feat of fiscal acrobatics so astonishing that even the most cynical observers of Abuja’s budgetary theatre must pause in admiration. For decades, Nigeria has squandered oil booms with the reliability of a metronome. But this administration has achieved something more ambitious: it has managed to squander a boom before it even finishes arriving.

The US–Iran war has sent oil prices soaring to $115 per barA Government Addicted to Debtrel, nearly double the government’s benchmark of $64.85. Nigeria is earning an extra $92 million every single day; a torrent of unbudgeted cash that would make even the most jaded petro state accountant blush. In barely a month, Abuja has pocketed almost $3 billion in windfall revenue. If the conflict drags on, the country could rake in $30–$36 billion this year alone. And what has the Tinubu administration done with this unexpected bounty? Why, it has gone on a borrowing binge, of course.

In the past week alone, the National Assembly approved: a $5 billion loan from First Abu Dhabi Bank; a $1 billion UKEF backed loan for Lagos ports; a $6 billion external borrowing package, rubber stamped in under four hours, and a N68.323 trillion budget; the largest in Nigeria’s history. This is not fiscal policy. This is a national credit card with no spending limit. Nigeria’s public debt now hovers around $115 billion, and debt servicing will gulp N20.5 trillion in 2026; more than the budgets of health, education, and infrastructure combined. Yet the government borrows as though it were a teenager discovering online shopping for the first time. One might have expected that a historic oil windfall would inspire restraint. Instead, Abuja behaves like a gambler who wins the lottery and immediately takes out a loan to buy more lottery tickets.

The Senate: From Upper Chamber to Upper Cashier

The Senate’s role in this farce deserves special mention. Once conceived as a check on executive excess, it now functions as a conveyor belt for presidential loan requests. The $6 billion borrowing package was approved with the speed of a fast food order; no debate, no scrutiny, no hesitation. Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, hardly a stranger to Nigeria’s fiscal melodramas, described the approval as “reckless urgency.” He is being polite. The Senate has not merely abdicated oversight; it has embraced its new role as a ceremonial stamp of approval, a kind of legislative rubber chicken waved over every loan document. One wonders whether senators even bother to read the fine print anymore, or whether they simply check the exchange rate, sigh, and sign.

The Oil Windfall That Will Not Be Saved

Other countries treat oil windfalls as blessings. Norway built a sovereign wealth fund so large it could buy entire countries. Saudi Arabia uses its surpluses to diversify its economy. Even Angola; long mocked for its corruption, has learned to stash away a portion of its oil riches. Nigeria, by contrast, treats windfalls as invitations to spend more, borrow more, and plan less. The Excess Crude Account, once envisioned as a rainy day fund, is now emptier than a politician’s promise after election day. The Sovereign Wealth Fund is a polite fiction. And fiscal discipline is a rumor whispered in the corridors of the Ministry of Finance. The tragedy is not that Nigeria is poor. The tragedy is that Nigeria is mismanaged.

The revised N68.323 trillion budget is a monument to fiscal optimism. It allocates N15.8 trillion to debt servicing; N15.4 trillion to recurrent expenditure, and N32.2 trillion to capital projects, many of them rolled over from previous years because the government failed to implement them. This is not a budget. It is a wish list. The government insists that the spending spree will “stimulate growth,” “unlock infrastructure,” and “stabilize the economy.” These are the same phrases Nigerian governments have used since the 1970s, usually moments before the economy collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.

Borrowing to Service Borrowing

The most farcical element of the Tinubu administration’s fiscal strategy is its reliance on borrowing to service existing borrowing. Nigeria now borrows to pay interest on previous loans, borrows to refinance old debts, borrows to fund recurrent expenditure, and borrows to cover budget gaps. This is not fiscal management. It is a Ponzi scheme with national colors. The administration insists that the debt is “sustainable.” So did Greece in 2008. So did Argentina in 2001. So did Nigeria in the 1980s; right before the IMF arrived with structural adjustment programs (SAP) that Nigerians still curse today.

Nigeria’s economy is a house built on sand: the naira remains fragile, inflation is suffocating households, foreign investors are fleeing, debt service consumes most of national revenue, oil production is unstable and non oil revenue is anemic. And yet, in the middle of this storm, the government has chosen to borrow more; at a moment when it should be saving aggressively. The oil windfall is a gift. But gifts require stewardship. And stewardship requires discipline. Neither is in abundant supply in Abuja.

Conclusion: A Nation at the Edge of a Fiscal Cliff

The expanded budget includes lavish allocations to the judiciary ahead of the 2027 elections, feasibility studies for politically convenient infrastructure, and capital projects that conveniently align with electoral maps. This is not economic planning. It is election year choreography. Nigeria is not being prepared for the future. It is being prepared for the polls.

The Tinubu administration inherited a difficult economy. But it has chosen to make it worse. Instead of using the oil windfall to rebuild reserves, strengthen the currency, reduce borrowing, and stabilize the economy, it has embarked on a reckless spending spree financed by loans that future generations will be forced to repay. Nigeria is earning billions, and saving nothing. And it is borrowing everything. History will not be kind to this moment. Nor will the bond markets. In the end, Nigeria’s tragedy is not that it lacks resources. It is that it lacks restraint. And in Abuja today, restraint is as scarce as electricity.

History, when ignored, does not repeat itself so much as it mutates, shedding its crude excesses for subtler, more insidious forms. Nigeria today finds itself staring at a disquieting reincarnation of one of its darkest democratic episodes: the cynical manipulation of institutions to predetermine political outcomes. The ghosts of June 1993 are not merely stirring; they are being methodically resurrected.

Nigeria has been here before. The country has seen how democracy can be strangled not only by soldiers in uniform but by civilians armed with institutions. The role once played by Arthur Nzeribe and his infamous Association for Better Nigeria has found a modern analogue, not in a shadowy pressure group, but in the coordinated conduct of the ruling All Progressives Congress, aided; whether by design or dereliction, by the supposed electoral umpire, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). What was once executed with military bluntness under Ibrahim Babangida is now being pursued with civilian finesse, bureaucratic euphemism, and legalistic camouflage. 

In 1993, the sabotage was crude. In 2026, it is clinical. In 1993, the objective was brutally straightforward - prevent the emergence of Moshood Abiola. The method was crude: injunctions procured in the dead of night, legal confusion and a crisis manufactured in broad daylight, and ultimately, the annulment of the June 12, 1993 election; the freest and fairest in Nigeria’s history - an annulment so brazen it scarred the nation’s conscience. Today’s strategy is more sophisticated, but no less pernicious. Instead of annulling elections, the aim is to ensure that meaningful elections never truly occur. Under the watch of President Bola Tinubu, the architecture of opposition politics is being quietly dismantled, not through outright bans, but through engineered dysfunction. Parties are not outlawed; they are hollowed out. Leadership structures are not formally dissolved; they are administratively erased. The result is the same: a political landscape where competition exists in theory but not in practice. Let us be clear: this is not mere political gamesmanship. It is the systematic corrosion of democratic choice. 

Critics now argue that the same playbook is being dusted off, updated, and deployed with greater sophistication. The facts are clear for all to see: Nigeria’s ruling party is engineering chaos within opposition parties, weaponizing litigation, and leveraging institutional power to tilt the 2027 elections before a single ballot is cast. And at the centre of this storm stands the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), whose recent actions have raised profound questions about neutrality and constitutional responsibility. The manufactured implosion of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has become the most visible casualty of what critics describe as a coordinated strategy of destabilization. Once positioned as a potential rallying point for opposition forces, including figures such as Senator David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola; the party has been plunged into a leadership crisis so severe that it now borders on institutional paralysis. 

The turning point came when INEC removed the names of the recognised National Working Committee from its official portal. The commission cited a court order. But legal analysts argue that the court instructed all parties to maintain the status quo, not to erase the party’s leadership structure entirely. To interpret “status quo” as “delete the leadership” is, a linguistic and legal contortion so extreme it borders on administrative vandalism. The ADC was not leaderless before litigation began. It is leaderless now, because INEC made it so. This intervention is not neutrality; it is sabotage. And the beneficiaries are always the same: the ruling APC. INEC’s decision to remove a recognized leadership from its official records, under the pretext of maintaining “status quo,” is not merely questionable—it is Orwellian. One does not preserve a structure by deleting its foundation. 

The case of the African Democratic Congress is illustrative, but by no means unique. Across the political landscape, opposition parties are being pulled into factional disputes, suspicious defections, and litigation that appears to erupt with uncanny timing. These crises are not organic; they are engineered.

The pattern is unmistakable: a promising opposition platform gains momentum; a faction suddenly emerges, claiming leadership; litigation follows; INEC’s administrative decisions deepen the crisis; the party becomes unable to field candidates, and the APC advances unchallenged. This is not the messy unpredictability of democracy. 

INEC insist the commission is merely obeying court orders. But INEC’s interpretations consistently produce outcomes that weaken opposition parties and strengthen the ruling party. In the ADC case, INEC did not preserve the status quo; it obliterated it. In other cases, INEC has selectively recognized factions, attended meetings of one group while ignoring another; issue administrative decisions that tilt internal disputes, and delay or accelerating recognition in ways that shape political outcomes. An electoral umpire must be above suspicion. But critics argue that INEC’s conduct increasingly resembles that of a participant, whose decisions carry decisive political consequences.

The parallels with 1993 are chilling. Then, as now, a legal maneuver was used to derail democratic choice. Then, as now, a small group of actors exploited institutional levers to produce political paralysis. Then, as now, the consequences threatened national stability. Arthur Nzeribe later boasted that he had achieved his objective. Today’s actors are more discreet, but the effect is the same: the systematic erosion of electoral competition. Democracy does not die only through coups. It can be suffocated through institutional capture, procedural sabotage, administrative manipulation, and the quiet elimination of political alternatives. What happened in 1993 was swift. What is happening now is slow, deliberate, and potentially more dangerous.

Nigeria is drifting toward a de facto one party state, not through persuasion or performance, but through the incapacitation of opponents. If opposition parties enter 2027 fragmented, leaderless, or legally entangled, the election risks becoming a coronation rather than a contest. A government that wins by disabling its opponents does not gain legitimacy. It gains power, but at the cost of national cohesion. Nigeria has seen this before. It ended in crisis. The strategy is not only anti democratic; it is profoundly reckless. Nigeria is not a country that quietly accepts political manipulation. From the June 12 struggle to the #EndSARS movement, Nigerians have repeatedly shown that they will resist attempts to curtail their political rights. 

The ruling APC, for its part, has perfected the art of plausible deniability. Every crisis within opposition ranks is dismissed as an “internal affair.” Every judicial entanglement is framed as due process. Every defection is celebrated as political freedom. Yet the pattern is too consistent, too convenient, and too beneficial to be dismissed as coincidence. What we are witnessing is not organic political evolution, but curated disintegration. This is how democracies decay; not with the clang of tanks, but with the quiet complicity of institutions. The danger of this trajectory cannot be overstated. A one-party state, whether declared or de facto, is not merely a political arrangement; it is an existential threat to national stability. 

A one party state imposed through subterfuge will not produce stability. It will produce resentment, unrest, and a crisis of legitimacy that no amount of state power can suppress. A government that secures victory by incapacitating its opponents rather than persuading its citizens governs on borrowed legitimacy. Such legitimacy is inherently fragile. It breeds cynicism, fuels resentment, and invites resistance. It turns elections into rituals rather than contests, and governance into imposition rather than representation. The consequences will not be confined to the political class. Ordinary Nigerians, already burdened by economic hardship and social insecurity, will bear the cost of institutional decay. When citizens lose faith in the electoral process, they do not simply become apathetic; they become alienated. And alienation, in a country as complex and volatile as Nigeria, is a dangerous condition.

Competition in politics is not a luxury; it is a necessity. It disciplines power, legitimizes authority, and provides citizens with a sense of agency. Remove it, and what remains is governance by imposition, not consent. History is merciless to those who manipulate democratic institutions for short term gain. The forces that once used Nzeribe eventually lost control of the chaos they created. Nigeria paid the price. The course being charted today; through institutional manipulation, administrative engineering, and political sabotage, leads to a dead end. Attempts to circumvent democracy, however sophisticated, are ultimately self-defeating. The APC and INEC stand at a crossroads. They can continue down the path of engineered dominance, mistaking control for legitimacy and compliance for consent. Or they can recalibrate and restore institutional integrity, respect the autonomy of opposition parties, and allow elections to function as genuine contests of ideas and performance. The choice should be obvious. The consequences of ignoring it are equally so. History, after all, is not merely a record of what has been. It is a warning of what could be. And Nigeria, having once paid dearly for the manipulation of its democracy, can ill afford to repeat the lesson—no matter how elegantly disguised the repetition may be.

Members of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) are incensed by the de-recognition of the leadership of their party by Nigeria’s electoral umpire, INEC, relying on a March 12, 2026 judgement of the Court of Appeal in Abuja (Appeal No. CA/ABJ/145/2026) viz: Senator David Mark v. Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe & Ors. This move by the INEC has turned out to be a big, destabilizing blow to the ADC which was fast emerging as the most dominant opposition party to the ruling APC. Prior to the throwing of this curve ball which has now disoriented the ADC and exposed fissures within its ranks, the party had emerged with the second largest number of representatives in the National Assembly, and perhaps from the national to the grassroots level. It boasts among its ranks, political bigwigs such as former Vice President Atiku Abubakar (ex-PDP), Peter Obi (ex-Labour), Rotimi Amaechi (ex-APC), Nasir El-Rufai (ex-APC), Dr. Rabiu Musa Kwakwanso (ex-NNPP). Its advertised Chairman is former Senate President, Senator David Mark, with former Governor of Osun state, Ogbeni Raufu Aregbesola (as Secretary) and a host of other tested politicians and foot soldiers who share more than a casual familiarity with the intrigues, texture and the patterns of the Nigerian political terrain. They are united by one ambition, long articulated by Malam Nasir El- Rufai, now in ICPC anti-corruption detention – which is to remove both President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his ruling party, the All Progressives Congress from power in the 2027 general election. With the arrival of Dr. Kwankwaso, the calculations for the outlook of the likely ADC Presidential ticket reached a frightening pitch. On April 1, INEC burst the ADC bubble. The party is now in a state of animated suspension, if not confusion, and outrage. 

The facts of the matter are as follows: On July 29, 2025, Ralph Okey Nwosu, the erstwhile Chairman of the ADC at a NEC meeting of the party resigned his position and ratified the appointment of the present members of the National Working Committee of the party led by Senator David Mark. Nafiu Bala Gombe who was the Deputy National Chairman of the party raised an objection that he should have been the person to take over from Nwosu, not David Mark and others who had just joined the party. He was reminded by the Nwosu-backed group that he had resigned as Deputy Chairman through a letter he signed on May 17, 2025, which had since been forwarded to INEC and duly received and acknowledged by August 12, 2025. Nafiu Bala Gombe denied that he ever resigned. On September 2, 2025, he filed a case at the Federal High Court, Abuja (Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe v. ADC & 4 Ors.), a motion ex parte and a motion on notice, to seek an order of interlocutory injunction restraining David Mark and others from parading themselves as leaders of the ADC. The matter was heard by Justice Emeka Nwite on September 4. His Lordship did not grant the ex parte application but he ordered that parties be put on notice. Upon which the David Mark-led ADC group went ahead to file an appeal. On March 12, the Appeal Court gave a preservatory order to wit: “parties are hereby directed to maintain the status quo ante bellum and shall refrain from taking any step or doing any act capable of foisting a fait accompli on the court or otherwise rendering nugatory the proceedings before the trial court.” A cost of N2 million was awarded in favour of the first respondent.

The David Mark-led group continued with their preparations for the 2027 general election with the registration of members, including defections into the party, meetings, preparations for congresses scheduled for April 9, 2026 and the party Convention on April 14, 2026. It was obviously at this point that Nafiu Gombe kicked again. INEC reportedly received two letters: one from Suleiman Usman SAN & Co, urging INEC not to recognize Nafiu Gombe on account of the pending suit in the Federal High Court, Abuja; the second letter came from Summit Law Chambers asking INEC to enforce the judgment of the Court of Appeal which required INEC to (a) cease recognition of Senator David Mark and Ogbeni Rauf Aregebesola as National Chairman and National Chairman respectively of ADC; (b) remove their names from the Commission’s portal; and (c) refrain from dealing with or recognizing any actions taken by them in respect of the party in line with the preservation orders made by the Court of Appeal. Subsequently, Summit Law Chambers protested that INEC erred to have invited the David Mark group to a political parties meeting on Tuesday, March 24 and for monitoring a NEC meeting of the group. After what INEC calls “a careful consideration” of court processes – both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal - the body resolved to maintain the “status quo ante bellum”, remove the names of Senator Mark and Ogbeni Aregbesola from its portal pending the determination of the case at the Federal High Court, Abuja. It also refused to accede to the request of Nafiu Gombe’s lawyers to allow him take over the leadership of the party.  Thus, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) was thrown into limbo. INEC insists that it has only complied with judicial orders strictly, and with neutrality and impartiality in the matter. 

Nonetheless, hell has since broken loose between INEC and ADC. It is not the kind of hell fire President Donald Trump has promised in Iran but it is still hot enough to raise serious questions about the state of Nigerian democracy, the plight of the opposition, the prospects of Nigeria’s 2027 general election, the conduct of political parties and the role of civil society. It would appear that the major source of conflict has to do with the interpretation of the phrase “status quo ante bellum”, referred to by the Court of Appeal and relied upon by INEC, which would now hereafter occupy a prominent place in the grammar of politics in Nigeria. Status quo ante bellum: While this phrase may be clear to any sophomore student of law, it can be confusing to an average Nigerian. Nigeria’s official language is English, and that as a second language is still a major test for many of our compatriots who may prefer to speak pidgin English or better still their native tongues.  To foist upon such people another layer of expression, such as Latin, a dead language for that matter, may serve the purpose of lawyers who are used to such imponderables and pompous turns of phrase, an affectation of being learned, but to the ordinary man, those Latin phrases may seem arcane. Nigerian lawyers and judges can learn a lesson here. They should begin to speak clearly, concisely and precisely.  Judges should give clear, exact orders, and not speak tongue-in-cheek.  

On Thursday, April 2, the ADC, led by Senator David Mark held a World Press Conference at the Musa Yar’Adua Conference Centre in Abuja where the group submitted that the INEC Chairman acted beyond his powers, took sides, and chose the path of dishonour by misinterpreting what the Court of Appeal meant by status quo ante bellum. The whole idea of this restraining order is to prefer the res, that is the substance of the dispute, until the court determines the issue(s) at stake. But with conflicting interests at stake, what the status was before the commencement of hostilities is now a subject of differing interpretations.  The Appeal Court could have been clearer by putting a specific date to that part of its judgment. Our courts must learn to use Latin, if they must, rather sparingly, and pay greater attention to clarity. But now that there is a dispute over what is status and what ante bellum means, and INEC has taken a decision based on its own reading, the best place to still return to for a proper interpretation is the court of law. Those who are threatening to resort to self-help and adopt extra-judicial means to push their point are better advised not to. Rather than keep whimpering, the ADC should file an application of urgency to ask the Appeal Court to interpret its status quo ante bellum, while arguing that the emergence of the David Mark group in the ADC being “a completed act,” there is no ante bellum to speak of. 

Senator David Mark, and his allies have continued to pour out a lot of vituperations. INEC was specifically accused of working for the President and the ruling party to impose the dictatorship of a one-party rule on Nigeria in 2027. The ADC faction told Professor Joash Amupitan very bluntly that his INEC cannot determine the leadership of any political party. They said he can no longer be trusted and so, he and his National Commissioners should either resign or be sacked, because in any case, the ADC would go ahead with the party’s Congresses on April 9 and the Convention on April 14, and there is nothing that INEC can do. They insisted that whether INEC likes it or not, ADC would be part of the forthcoming Gubernatorial elections in Ekiti and Osun States! “This attack on democracy will not stand!”, Senator David Mark declared. I had an hour-long interview with the INEC Chairman, which has since been aired on Arise News, first as a preview, and then a fuller interview subsequently. Professor Amupitan reacted to all the allegations and denied being used as anybody’s tool. He affirmed that he would be eventually remembered as a fair-minded umpire who respected the rule of law and served his country to the best of his ability. INEC even issued another statement to proclaim its good faith.  It has been a tough week for INEC. When it was not ADC attacking the organization including being labelled “an organization of criminals”, other voices in civil society have claimed without proof that Professor Amupitan was blackmailed into getting INEC to take the position it took, or that INEC officials were given landed properties by the ruling party to disenfranchise the majority of Nigerians through such schemes as voter registration, and the revalidation of Voter’s cards. 

The INEC Chairman is a victim of circumstance. The opposition never gave him a chance since he assumed office. They have ploughed upon him and INEC their misgivings about the 2027 electoral process. But the truth is that the allegation of Nigeria becoming a one-party state is a weighty one. It is not in anybody’s interest. The opposition says we are on our way to a one-party rule, and that the ruling APC, by sabotaging other political parties, and using INEC or other agents, is determined to ensure that Nigerians do not have any option besides the incumbent President in 2027. The hallmark of democracy is the competition and the scope for freedom and choice that it offers. A ruling party that becomes a one-party rule would ultimately shoot itself in the foot. Such a party would leave no room for the expression of differences, invariably become a pressure cooker, with various competing interests, that being the pristine nature of politics, until the same party thinking it has secured ultimate power begins to implode under the weight of its own contradictions. In a multi-party, plural, participatory democracy, the possibility of an alternative introduces a diversity that imbues the people generally with hope that change is possible. It would not be in the interest of the ruling APC in Nigeria to lock the people in a cage. There are 21 political parties on the field. The prominent ones among them: the PDP, ADC, Labour, NNPP and the SDP all blame their internal problems on the APC.  But how are the parties themselves, and their leaders? The major problem should be traced to the character of Nigerian politicians and the state of our political parties. It is sad that most Nigerian political parties are cash and carry Special Purpose Vehicles, and hence, the parties are fragile, the members are peripatetic, the pattern of loyalties is seasonal. 

Some of the opposition parties have threatened that they would boycott the 2027 elections. Political boycott of elections may be symbolic and raise questions of legitimacy, but it is only those who vote that win. Leaders of such boycotts tend to end up in exile after the ruling party would have had its way as we have seen in Cote d’Ivoire, Cameroon, Uganda, Togo and Republic of Benin.  Those opposition parties including the Taminu Turaki-led faction of the PDP and the African Action Congress (AAC) toying with the idea of a boycott in 2027 would only make it easier for the APC to win. A boycott may make the news, but it does not have any legal effect. Voter turn-out may be low but only the votes available will be counted.  The ADC at its press conference on April 2 called on the international community to keep an eye on the Nigerian situation. Okay. To do what exactly? The best option going forward for the professional political class, whatever may be the label, is to put Nigeria first. INEC also has an urgent duty to rebuild confidence and trust across board, and avoid the trap that has already been carefully, and so far, successfully laid for it, convicted as it is, even before trial.