Loading ...ABUJA — In one of the most blistering indictments of the current administration’s democratic credentials, prominent legal practitioner Barrister Elzubair Abubakar has accused President Bola Ahmed Tinubu of orchestrating an unprecedented, systemic capture of Nigeria’s foundational democratic institutions.
Abubakar argued that the current centralization of power eclipses even the darkest eras of military dictatorship and repression, warning that the deliberate subversion of the judiciary, the electoral umpire, and state security apparatuses threatens to permanently hollow out the nation’s constitutional democracy.
The Equating of Executive Power with Statehood
A core pillar of Abubakar’s critique centers on the perceived weaponization of federal law enforcement to shield the presidency from public accountability and political dissent. He challenged a growing socio-political trend where criticism of the President is systematically treated as an existential threat to national security.
“Today, all of Nigeria’s security agencies work for Tinubu rather than for Nigeria,” Abubakar stated, highlighting a severe distortion in the mandate of federal law enforcement. “If I were to insult Tinubu here right now, you would immediately see the DSS and the police. They wouldn’t even stop to question you; they would simply say you had insulted the nation. Is Tinubu the nation?”
This conflation of the person of the President with the sovereign state, according to analysts, mimics authoritarian frameworks where legitimate political expression is criminalized through state-sanctioned intimidation.
Institutional Paralysis: The Capture of INEC and the Judiciary
For university-educated observers monitoring the structural health of the republic, Abubakar’s most alarming assertions relate to the total compromise of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the judiciary—the two institutions legally mandated to serve as neutral arbiters.
- Electoral Manipulation: Abubakar directly linked the chronic internal crises plaguing major opposition parties to deliberate executive interference, alleging that the President has effectively crippled INEC and brought it firmly under his control.
- Judicial Subjugation: The judiciary, historically regarded as the last hope of the common man, was described as having fallen completely under executive influence. Abubakar questioned whether any citizen or opposition entity could realistically approach the courts with any genuine confidence in receiving an impartial trial.
The PDP Conundrum: Legitimizing Factionalism
To substantiate his claims of regulatory capture, the legal practitioner pointed to the ongoing leadership crisis within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as a definitive case study in institutional lawlessness.
He highlighted a profound legal paradox: despite the Supreme Court delivering a definitive judgment against the pro-Wike faction of the PDP, INEC has allegedly continued to recognize, interface with, and validate that specific bloc. By actively defying judicial precedents to favor a faction politically aligned with the interests of the ruling center, the electoral umpire has severely damaged its own institutional credibility.
A Crisis of Public Confidence Ahead of Future Polls
Abubakar concluded with a sobering warning regarding the upcoming electoral cycle. He argued that when the police act as partisan enforcers, the judiciary ceases to be independent, and the electoral umpire openly flouts apex court rulings, the foundational contract of democratic elections is shattered.
With public trust in state institutions at an all-time low, security and political analysts warn that the administration’s systematic consolidation of power over supposedly independent bodies may inadvertently pave the way for widespread political apathy or volatile civil unrest, as citizens increasingly lose faith in the ballot box as a mechanism for peaceful democratic transition.
