The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Nigeria’s electoral umpire, pinned August,19th, 2026 as the date the presidential election campaign whistle will sound.

It means that politicians can officially begin their politicking. Political rallies, campaign meetings, visits, shopping for endorsements, banners, posters, explosive interviews and even brazen actions can now begin to happen.
This is because INEC whistle must have been sounded.

But these activities have been going on under other guise and this calls for worry.

Long before now, inflammatory comments are being dished out.
Posters are being erected in strategic places, giant bill boards are standing in some places despite some governors’ intolerable disposition towards opponents erecting bill boards. Billboards, flyers and posters adorn and litter many buildings, roundabouts, fences and any available wall in the cities and remotest far-flung villages. These call attention to impending political battles among political parties and aspirants on the long queues for power.

To observers, politicians are exploiting legal loopholes to heat up the polity, knowing that they can easily evade sanctions by the electoral agency.

In September, Nigerians were taken aback by the early campaigns under the guise of party meetings, party visits, empowerment programmes, endorsement and other social events, including birthdays and funerals, which they elevated into campaign platform.

Concerns mounted over premature campaigns across the six geo-political zones, states, senatorial districts, constituencies and local governments because political parties are in a hurry, and aspirants are impatient and unwilling to wait for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)’s whistle before throwing their hats in the ring.

In spite of these obvious infractions, the Professor Amupitan-led INEC could not bark not to talk of biting.

At the DISCLOSURE News, we are worried that now that the whistle is about to be blown, who will call the wild politicians to order? Who will wield the big stick?

It is important therefore that we don’t return to the third republic politics when some political camps referred to themselves as ‘Brigades’ and ‘Forces’.

A 21st century Nigeria is supposed to evolve into decent, civil, transformational campaigns anchored on ideas, innovations and character.

We are horrified by the downward descent and slide our politics and politicians of the day have become.

INEC as the regulator of our political contest should be more proactive in setting out rules that can attract decent people and men of honour into the contest.

When men of character and honour are scared away by what looks like a ruffian activity, that’s the same way the people will be shortchanged and good governance will continue to elude the good people of Nigeria.

We call on the authorities concern to muster the will power and do the needful.

As the campaigns hot up, we charge every stakeholders to be alive to their civic duty; monitor, flag bad behavior, bad commentary, condemn inflammatory comments, call out the culprits.

Professor Joash Amupitan has an ample opportunity to put his name on the sands of time. He is leading the INEC at a time the commission needs to do noble work to regain its prestige that has been tainted by previous administration’s of the commission.

He is at liberty to initiate policies, ideas, embrace technologies, programmes, innovations that can add value to the electoral process, transparency credibility of our polls and history will be very kind to him.

We also use this opportunity to urge Nigerians to participate in the electoral process. Power belongs to the people and the people, so determined, will actually demonstrate this maxim.

The electoral umpire has always said it lacks the capacity to prosecute electoral offenders.We have always clamoured for electoral offences tribunal but in the interim, we shift our gaze to the regular courts, the police and the ministry of justice not to act mute in the face of provocations that can actually set the country on fire.

Prevention, it is said, is better than cure.

The resignation of India’s Education Minister, Dharmendra Pradhan, few days ago, following sustained protests by young people over the country’s education system offers an important lesson for Nigeria. Whether one agrees with the protesters or not, the minister accepted political responsibility for a crisis that had eroded public confidence. He stepped aside to allow the government to seek a solution.

In Nigeria, such an action is almost unheard of.

Over the years, Nigerian public officials have developed what appears to be an immunity to resignation. Even in the face of widespread public outrage, serious allegations of corruption, gross administrative failures, repeated violations of the rule of law, or nationwide protests, many public office holders cling to their positions until they are removed by the President, forced out by the courts, or complete their tenure.

This attitude has gradually weakened accountability and damaged public confidence in government.

Since the return to democratic rule in 1999, Nigeria has witnessed numerous crises that would have prompted resignations in many mature democracies. Yet resignation has become the exception rather than the rule.

During the administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo (1999–2007), allegations of corruption and abuse of office were levelled against several ministers and public officials. While a few eventually left office after investigations or presidential directives, voluntary resignation remained rare.

Under President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua (2007–2010), the government promoted the rule of law more vigorously, but public officials still hardly accepted personal responsibility for failures within their ministries or agencies.

Outstandingly, President Yar’Adua took the road never taken by admitting that the process that brought him in was not credible. Even though he did not resign but it was a departure from the normal.

The administration of President Goodluck Jonathan (2010–2015) witnessed several national controversies. The 2012 fuel subsidy protests, which paralysed much of the country, reflected widespread dissatisfaction with government policies. Despite the enormous public backlash and questions surrounding the subsidy regime, there was no wave of resignations from top officials directly associated with the policy.

The same pattern continued during the government of President Muhammadu Buhari (2015–2023). The #EndSARS protests of 2020 exposed deep concerns about police brutality and governance. Although the demonstrations drew global attention and led to the disbandment of the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS), very few senior political leaders accepted responsibility by resigning.

During the Buhari years, allegations involving corruption, insecurity, poor economic management, repeated fuel shortages, and prolonged strikes by university lecturers generated widespread criticism. Yet resignation remained almost absent from Nigeria’s political vocabulary.

Today, under the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Nigerians continue to grapple with economic hardship, high inflation, rising unemployment, insecurity, and growing public frustration following major economic reforms, including fuel subsidy removal and exchange rate liberalisation.

Several ministers, heads of agencies, and public office holders have faced allegations of misconduct, procurement irregularities, abuse of office, or administrative failures. Others have overseen sectors where service delivery has steadily deteriorated. Yet hardly anyone voluntarily accepts responsibility by resigning to protect the integrity of public institutions or restore public confidence.

Instead, the common response has become denial, blame-shifting, prolonged court battles, political lobbying, or waiting for investigations to fade from public attention.

Nigeria has also witnessed repeated instances where court orders are ignored, judicial processes are delayed, and constitutional principles appear secondary to political interests. Public protests by labour unions, students, civil society organisations, and ordinary citizens have become regular features of national life. Yet government officials often behave as though public opinion carries no weight.

This culture creates dangerous consequences. It weakens accountability, destroys public trust, encourages corruption, discourages ethical leadership, and fuels public anger.

Many developed democracies have established a different political tradition.

In countries such as the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, and South Korea, ministers have resigned over examination failures, transport accidents, policy mistakes, financial scandals, plagiarism, ethical breaches, or failures within agencies under their supervision. In many cases, resignation does not necessarily imply criminal guilt. It simply reflects political responsibility.

Public office is viewed as a trust rather than a personal entitlement.

Nigeria urgently needs to cultivate the same democratic culture.

Resignation should never be interpreted as weakness. On the contrary, it often demonstrates courage, honour, and respect for public institutions. A leader who resigns when confidence has collapsed may preserve both personal reputation and institutional credibility.

The lesson from India is not merely that a minister resigned after protests. The deeper lesson is that democratic leadership requires sensitivity to public confidence. When trust is badly damaged, honour sometimes demands stepping aside.

Nigeria cannot build a strong democracy if political office holders treat resignation as an impossible option. Leadership is not measured only by the ability to obtain power; it is equally measured by the willingness to accept responsibility when governance fails.

A nation where leaders never resign risks normalising impunity. A nation where accountability becomes part of political culture strengthens democracy, restores public trust, and inspires future generations to see public service as a sacred responsibility rather than an opportunity for personal survival.

Nigeria deserves leaders who understand that the highest honour in public service is not merely remaining in office but protecting the integrity of the office itself.

On Tuesday, July 28th, 2026, democrats and majority of Nigerians who have been worried about the parlous state of the nation especially as it affects the judiciary, heaved a sigh of relief when the Appeal Court gave its verdict on the vexatious issue of deregistration of some opposition parties numbering five including the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

The disappointment and angst in the land over the Federal High Court judgment that the parties be deregistered by the INEC stems from the fact that even a ‘kindergarten’ with a keen interest in the socio-political affairs of the country knows that the grounds on which Justice Lifu anchored his reasoning is not convincing.

So, when on Tuesday, the Court of Appeal cleared the road for ADC and four others to run their political business, the DISCLOSURE News associates itself with majority of Nigerians and democrats that celebrated the judgment.

We are not celebrating because the case has come to an end but because justice was seen to have done.
The three honourable justices agreed without a whimper by any. It was a relief to see that flash of courage to the extent that the judge of the lower court was berated, slammed.

The grounds upon which the lower court predicated its judgment was slippery, a quick sand and thank goodness, it caved in.

But at the DISCLOSURE News, we feel that it is not enough to berate Lifu for judicial rascality. It is also good to wield the big stick against erring judges as the consequences of such actions on the polity can not be over emphasized.

We agree with the ADC when it said in a statement, “We warmly welcome the landmark judgment of the Court of Appeal, which set aside the erroneous judgment of the Federal High Court that sought to remove the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and other political parties from Nigeria’s democratic space.”

“We congratulate the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal for their courage, fidelity to the Constitution and unwavering commitment to justice. Their judgment is a reassuring affirmation that the judiciary remains the last hope of the common man and the ultimate guardian of constitutional democracy. At a time when many Nigerians are anxious about the future of democratic governance, the Court has demonstrated that justice, when courageously dispensed, remains the strongest defence against arbitrariness.

“The appellate court rightly held that the judgment delivered on 15 June by Justice Lifu was a nullity, having been rendered in disobedience to a subsisting order of the Court of Appeal. It further found that the respondents lacked the locus standi to institute the action, describing their claims as speculative and legally unsustainable.

“The Court also clarified that Section 225A of the Constitution must be interpreted disjunctively, not conjunctively, and held that since the Osun and Ekiti election cycles were still active when the suit was filed, the action was premature.

“Equally significant was the Court’s finding that the trial court ignored the uncontroverted affidavit evidence of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which confirmed that the ADC and the other affected political parties had complied with all constitutional and statutory requirements. Having accepted INEC’s evidence, the lower court had no legal basis to manufacture additional conditions in order to arrive at what the Court of Appeal rightly described as a perverse decision.

“This judgment is far more than a legal victory for the ADC. It is a victory for every Nigerian who believes that democracy must be nurtured through free political competition rather than strangled through speculative litigation. The strength of a democracy lies not in the exclusion of political opponents but in allowing the people to freely determine their leaders through the ballot.

“We urge anti-democratic forces to resist the dangerous temptation of using the courts and other institutions of the state as instruments of political engineering. The judiciary must never be transformed into a battlefield for eliminating political competitors or shrinking the democratic space. Such conduct undermines public confidence in our institutions and diminishes the sacrifices made by countless Nigerians in the struggle to enthrone constitutional democracy.”

As the nation moves steadily towards the 2027 general election, political contests must be settled by the votes of Nigerians.
We expect the National Judicial Council to begin to wield big sticks against judicial officers whose actions tend to put the judiciary in bad light.