Features
LIFESTYLE – Diaspora Watch
12 Communication Habits That Annoy Your Coworkers And How To Fix Them
You know the coworker who messages “hi” and then disappears? The one who “circles back” well before you’ve had a chance to respond? What about the one who sends a five-paragraph email when one sentence would suffice? Of course you do: People with annoying communication habits exist in every conference room, Zoom tile, and inbox in the world. And they’re more than just a minor workplace woe.
“Communication is the most important aspect of our jobs,” says Tessa West, a professor of psychology at New York University and author of Jerks at Work: Toxic Coworkers and What to Do About Them. “We don’t realize this, but it’s [a major] reason why people are happy at work, and also why they disengage and leave.”
Your communication skills, or lack thereof, are on display during everything from daily banter in the break room to negotiating with your boss, running meetings, handling conflict, and dispensing feedback. “When these things break down, people feel really, really miserable at work,” West says.
We asked experts which communication habits are most likely to drive your colleagues up the wall, and why.
Being long-winded
One of the fastest ways to frustrate your coworkers is to bury the point. Think: turning a quick Slack into a TED Talk, or answering a yes-or-no question with context, history, nuance, and a surprise appendix. “You’re so caught up in your own work, and these details are so interesting and relevant to you, that you might not be stopping to ask, ‘OK, what does this other person actually need to know?’” says Alison Green, who runs the work-advice blog Ask a Manager. Often, the answer is: not all of that. As Green puts it, “What’s the upshot?” In many cases, you can skip the backstory and go straight to the one actionable thing your colleague actually needs. If they want more context, they’ll ask.
Starting messages with “hi” and no context
It’s the Slack message heard ’round the world: a lone “hi” followed by… nothing. The habit creates ambiguity and forces the recipient to wait and guess how urgent it is with zero clues. Surely the person messaging you wants something other than to extend a greeting; why can’t they come out and say it? The catch: There’s a communication divide at play. “Some people feel like it’s very rude to just launch into their question,” says Green, who’s received an increasing number of reader emails about this issue. Others feel the exact opposite way, because “you have no ability to assess how to prioritize it.” The middle ground? Be polite and direct. Say hello, then immediately get to the point. Your coworkers don’t need a suspenseful reveal.
Setting a deadline and then acting like it’s urgent days later
You say something is due in two weeks. Then, a few days later, you fire off a check-in message: “Hey, how’s that coming along?” To your coworker, it raises an immediate question: Did the deadline change? Why the sudden panic? This habit comes up a lot, Green says. “The person sets a deadline but then acts like there’s a problem well before the deadline because they haven’t heard anything,” she says. “It’s not that there’s no room for doing that, because sometimes it does make sense to check in, but often, it’s going to aggravate people because they’re going to feel like, ‘You told me I had two weeks. Why are you nagging me about this now?’”
Often, it’s not about the work, it’s about nerves. If that sounds familiar, make sure the deadline you’re setting is the right one, Green suggests, and accounts for any check-ins you’ll want along the way.
Slow response time
Silence speaks volumes—especially at work. When you’re clearly online but don’t respond to a colleague for hours, if at all, “It’s really a signal of the level of respect,” says Erica Dhawan, a leadership expert and author of Digital Body Language: How to Build Trust and Connection, No Matter the Distance. Long delays can trigger what she calls “digital anxiety,” where colleagues start to wonder: Is she ignoring me? Did I do something wrong? The fix is simple: Acknowledge the message, even if you can’t answer right away. A quick “Got this will respond later today” goes a long way toward keeping everyone on the same page.
Sending emails with vague subject lines
RE: We need to talk. (About your subject line.) When it’s vague, or missing entirely, the person on the receiving end has to spend time parsing the email to understand what you need. That’s what psychologist Liane Davey calls “thought load”: the strain we create for others when we don’t communicate clearly. “We should have ‘return to sender’ with emails that are vague and unclear,” she says.
A better approach, Dhawan adds, is to treat the subject line as “the new eye contact”, a quick signal that tells people exactly what matters. For example: “Decision required by 3 p.m.,” which helps people triage the request. If your colleague can’t instantly tell what you need, it’s time to rewrite it.
Softening feedback so much the message gets lost
Managers often think they’re being kind when they soften criticism but doing so can backfire. When Green coached managers professionally, she saw the same scenario play out repeatedly: Someone would believe they’d delivered clear, serious feedback, while the employee walked away having missed the message entirely. “It came up so much that it was almost comical, except the stakes were so high that it was actually tragic,” she says. “Managers would think they had given very serious performance feedback to an employee, like the kind of thing that could potentially jeopardize someone’s job.
But they softened it so much that the message was not actually delivered.” Green would often ask: “Did you use the words, ‘I could end up needing to let you go over this’?” At least 75% of the time, the answer was no, and it turned out the manager had sugar-coated their message, even after role-playing the scenario.
The fix is to be clear, not harsh. If something is serious, say so plainly. Otherwise, you’re not sparing someone’s feelings; you’re leaving them without the information they need to improve.
Creating unnecessary uncertainty
Anyone who’s ever received a vague meeting request or a “can you hop on a quick call?” message, knows how fast anxiety can spiral. It’s called “uncertainty-based stress,” and it’s a top trigger for work place anxiety, West says. “Bosses do this all the time: ‘I need to meet with you. It’s important. How does Monday sound?’ You don’t know what it’s about, and you spend the whole weekend stressed out.” (No wonder, she adds, that couples’ therapists spend so much time discussing work issues that bleed into their clients’ relationships and overall well-being.)
The solution is to be specific. A quick note about what you want to discuss can prevent unnecessary stress and make conversations more productive from the start.
Letting your stress spill onto others
We all have bad days at work. The problem is when they become everyone else’s problem, too. After an unpleasant exchange in a meeting or a tense one-on-one with your boss, people naturally want to talk to someone else about what’s going on. “That’s what we need to regulate our emotions and to feel better about the situation,” says West, who studies stress contagion. “But that pulls that other person in, and they can catch our stress. It can be super disruptive when it happens all the time.”
That’s why immediately venting, especially in the middle of the workday, isn’t always the best move. Instead, West suggests giving yourself some space first: Resist the urge to hop on the phone or Slack or plant yourself on a friend’s desk, and instead take 10 or 15 minutes to cool off. Then share more intentionally, ideally at a time that works for both of you.
Ignoring or mismatching communication norms
Emojis have become corporate lingo, but only certain ones, and only in some offices, and only part of the time. That’s the tricky thing about workplace communication: The rules aren’t universal. Every team develops its own unwritten norms, including how quickly to respond, how formal to be, and even which emojis register as friendly vs. unprofessional. “We have norms for how we communicate that we don’t realize we have,” West says.
She recalls working with an organization that brought her in to solve a communication breakdown, only to discover it all stemmed from something surprisingly small. “The person used smiley emoticons, and their team didn’t like it,” she says. It became such a sticking point that the company paid West, as she puts it, “a stupid amount of money” to fix what was essentially a clash over emoji use.
No one had said anything directly, but it was bothering people enough to derail communication. The fix is simple, if a little awkward: Talk about it. Making expectations explicit, around communication tone, timing, and even emoji use, can prevent small misunderstandings from turning into bigger ones.
Poorly run meetings that waste everyone’s time
Few things sour the workday like a meeting that should have been an email. In most cases, the issue isn’t the meeting itself: It’s how it’s run. “The person in charge of running the meeting isn’t good at facilitating it,” Green says. “Without someone actively guiding the discussion, conversations drift, time gets wasted, and people leave wondering why they were there in the first place.”
A better approach: set a clear agenda (ideally distributed beforehand) and stick to it. “Be willing to be very assertive about managing the time,” Green says. That includes setting expectations upfront and cutting things off when they go off track.
Being too loud and not realizing it
The return to the office brought something else back, too: noise. “Being too loud at work is a real problem coming back from the pandemic,” West says. People got used to their own spaces—and their own volume, and those habits didn’t always translate well once they were back around coworkers.
That can show up in all kinds of ways: taking Zoom calls at full volume, playing music out loud, or chat ting in shared spaces while others are trying to focus. “There’s a tendency for people to raise their voice when they’re on Zoom,” West says. “They talk louder than they do in person, they’re actually kind of yelling quite a bit.” Part of the issue is that today’s offices aren’t built for this kind of noise. “We’ve shrunk our workspaces,” she says, which means people are often working just feet away from someone else’s meeting (or their personal phone call). And while it might feel awkward to say something, especially if the person is more senior, staying silent can leave you “miserable all the time.”
The fix isn’t complicated, but it does require some coordination. Teams should set basic norms around sound, where to take calls, when to move conversations elsewhere, and what’s appropriate in shared spaces.
Oversharing at work
The workplace has gotten more open but that doesn’t mean anything goes. Some people are comfortable sharing everything from health struggles to relationship issues, while others would rather keep things strictly professional. “Don’t assume that these are things you can bring to work,” West says. Without clear norms, those differences can create awkward moments for everyone involved.
West says she’s seen situations where one employee opens up, expecting support, only to be met with visible discomfort. Why? Because expectations weren’t aligned. “We’re seeing lots of variability in the workplace around acceptability,” she says. And while openness can be valuable, “bosses are not therapists, they’re not trained to do that.”
The fix: Set clearer boundaries. That often starts at the organizational level, through HR policies and team conversations about what’s appropriate. Otherwise, people are left to navigate these gray areas on their own.
Analysis
NDC As A New Bride, by Alabidun Shuaib AbdulRahman
NDC As A New Bride, by Alabidun Shuaib AbdulRahman
In Nigerian politics, new parties arrive the way comets appear in troubled skies. They appear suddenly, brightly and with exaggerated promises of redemption. Every election cycle births another coalition of disappointed politicians, frustrated elites, restless youths and displaced loyalists seeking what they call a “new direction.” Yet history has not been kind to many of them. Most vanish into the crowded cemetery of political irrelevance even before the next electoral season matures.
But the emergence of the Nigeria Democratic Congress, NDC, appears different in timing, symbolism and political calculations. Whether it ultimately becomes a genuine ideological alternative or merely another temporary shelter for ambitious politicians remains one of the defining political questions ahead of the 2027 general elections. The metaphor of a “new bride” fits perfectly.
In African culture, especially within the Nigerian sociopolitical imagination, a new bride arrives adorned with admiration, expectations, curiosity and suspicion. Everybody wants to see her. Everybody praises her beauty. Everybody speculates about her future. But beyond the wedding glamour lies the difficult burden of sustaining a home. That is precisely the present condition of the NDC in Nigeria’s political arena.
Officially recognised by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC on February 5, 2026, the NDC emerged alongside the Democratic Leadership Alliance after a prolonged legal and administrative process. INEC Chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan, disclosed that while DLA passed the conventional registration requirements, the NDC secured recognition through a Federal High Court order from Lokoja, Kogi State. That detail is politically important.
Unlike parties organically nurtured through ideological evolution, the NDC entered the national consciousness through judicial intervention. In Nigeria, where courts increasingly shape political destinies from governorship victories to legislative leadership tussles, the judiciary has become an unofficial co-author of democratic processes.
Nigeria’s political atmosphere today resembles a nation exhausted by recycled promises. The ruling All Progressives Congress, APC continues to face criticism over inflation, insecurity, unemployment and rising public frustration. Meanwhile, the opposition Peoples Democratic Party, PDP remains weakened by prolonged internal crises, leadership disputes and ideological confusion. The Labour Party, despite its emotional 2023 momentum, has struggled to convert populist enthusiasm into durable institutional structure. That vacuum created the perfect political maternity ward for another party. And Nigerians, perpetually hopeful despite repeated disappointments, naturally turned their attention toward the newcomer.
Already, the NDC is being discussed not merely as another registered party among Nigeria’s political parties, but as a possible coalition platform for displaced opposition figures seeking a stronger vehicle for 2027. The discussion intensified dramatically in early May 2026 following the formal defection of two of Nigeria’s most influential opposition politicians, Peter Obi and Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso. Their entrance transformed the NDC overnight from a little-known political organization into a major national conversation.
On May 3, 2026, both politicians were formally welcomed into the party during a high-profile political gathering held at the Abuja residence of former Bayelsa State governor, Seriake Dickson, who now serves as the NDC’s national leader. The event attracted political stakeholders, party officials and supporters from different regions of the country. During the gathering, Obi and Kwankwaso received their membership cards and addressed supporters on the future of the party.
Kwankwaso reportedly urged Nigerians interested in contesting future elections to register with the party immediately, while Obi spoke about building “a united, secure and prosperous Nigeria.” The symbolism of that event was impossible to ignore.
Obi remains one of the most influential opposition figures among Nigerian youths, especially after his remarkable performance in the 2023 presidential election under the Labour Party. Kwankwaso, on the other hand, commands a formidable grassroots structure in Northern Nigeria through the Kwankwasiyya movement. Their movement into the NDC instantly gave the party national visibility, regional balance and electoral seriousness. But the NDC did not stop there.
In recent weeks, the party has increased nationwide consultations and political receptions aimed at attracting defectors from other parties. Reports indicate that politicians from the APC, PDP, ADC and other opposition platforms have begun gravitating toward the NDC amid growing dissatisfaction within their former parties.
One of the earliest prominent figures to join was Amanda Pam, a notable Federal Capital Territory politician and former Deputy National Legal Adviser of the PDP. Senator Dickson personally received her into the party in April, describing the NDC as a growing ideological platform for national renewal.
More recently, the party also welcomed activist and social commentator Aisha Yesufu into its fold. On May 6, Yesufu announced her resignation from the ADC and formally declared for the NDC, revealing plans to contest the FCT Senatorial seat under the party’s platform.
Aisha Yesufu is not merely a politician. She represents a generation of activist-driven political consciousness that gained prominence during the Bring Back Our Girls campaign, the EndSARS protests and the Obi political movement of 2023. Her entrance into the NDC signaled the party’s attempt to combine elite political experience with activist energy.
The party has also recorded gains within legislative circles. Several members of the House of Representatives reportedly defected to the NDC shortly after Obi and Kwankwaso joined the party.
In another notable development, serving lawmakers from Edo State, including Natasha Osawaru Idibia, were formally received into the NDC during a political gathering in Abuja where Dickson warned against what he described as “transactional politics.” Former Gombe State Deputy Governor, John Lazarus Yoriyo, also joined the party at the same event. These activities have helped project the image of a party aggressively building momentum ahead of 2027. Yet the “new bride” metaphor remains politically dangerous.
Nigerians have a troubling habit of romanticising political newcomers. Every emerging movement is prematurely treated as a revolutionary salvation before its ideological foundation is properly interrogated. The country witnessed this phenomenon during the formation of the APC in 2013 when many Nigerians celebrated it as the coalition that would permanently rescue the nation from PDP dominance. Yet barely a decade later, many citizens who once celebrated that coalition now lament worsening economic hardship and democratic disappointments.
The NDC must answer difficult questions beyond the excitement of novelty. What exactly does it ideologically represent? Is it socially democratic? Progressively reformist? Or merely an emergency political apartment for frustrated elites seeking electoral shelter and survival?
So far, public discourse surrounding the party appears driven more by personalities than philosophy. That is Nigeria’s recurring democratic tragedy. Parties often revolve around influential politicians rather than coherent ideological convictions. In advanced democracies, voters can reasonably predict policy directions from party identity. In Nigeria, politicians migrate between parties with the emotional attachment of passengers changing commercial buses at Ojota.
Today’s progressive becomes something else tomorrow without ideological explanation. That is why Nigerians increasingly struggle to distinguish one party from another beyond slogans, logos and campaign colours. The NDC therefore faces an urgent intellectual responsibility: defining itself before defections define it.
A political party cannot sustainably survive on borrowed popularity alone. Emotional momentum without ideological infrastructure eventually collapses under the weight of ambition. The Labour Party’s post-2023 internal turmoil demonstrated this reality vividly. Popular movements may win elections, but only organized institutions sustain political relevance. This explains why many observers remain cautiously curious about the NDC.
Although there is undeniably a growing appetite among young Nigerians for alternative politics. Nigeria possesses one of the world’s youngest populations, with a median age below 20 years. Yet governance remains dominated by older political establishments. The frustration among youths over unemployment, inflation, educational instability and migration pressures has intensified demands for political renewal. Under such conditions, a disciplined opposition platform can become electorally dangerous to incumbents. But danger to incumbents alone does not equal democratic transformation.
Nigeria does not merely need another election-winning machine. It needs parties capable of institutionalizing governance culture, respecting internal democracy and nurturing ideological clarity. Without these, power simply changes occupants while dysfunction retains ownership of the system.
This is why the NDC must resist the temptation of becoming merely an anti-APC emotional coalition. Opposition built solely around anger eventually collapses after electoral seasons. Sustainable parties require philosophical substance beyond resentment against incumbents.
Equally important is the moral burden now facing the NDC’s emerging leadership. Nigerians are increasingly skeptical of political migration motivated purely by electoral convenience. When politicians defect without explaining ideological disagreements, citizens interpret movements as elite survival strategies rather than principled repositioning.
Social media discussions surrounding Obi and Kwankwaso’s movement to the NDC reflect this division clearly. While supporters view the party as a fresh opposition alternative, critics argue that repeated defections among Nigerian politicians expose the absence of ideological discipline within the political class. Such skepticism is understandable.
Nigeria’s democratic history contains too many abandoned promises. Yet democracy itself thrives on the possibility of renewal. Citizens cannot permanently surrender political hope simply because previous experiments failed. The challenge lies in balancing optimism with critical vigilance.
That balance is exactly how Nigerians should approach the NDC. Admire the bride if you wish. Celebrate the wedding if necessary. But do not ignore the marriage questions.
Can the party survive beyond electoral convenience? Can it manage internal imbroglio, if any arise? Can it resist godfather domination? Can it build structures beyond social media enthusiasm? Can it offer governance ideas beyond opposition rhetoric? Can it institutionalize internal democracy better than existing parties?
Those questions matter far more than registration certificates and ceremonial declarations. For now, however, the bride remains attractive because she is still largely undefined. And perhaps that is both her greatest strength and most dangerous weakness.
Alabidun is a media practitioner and can be reached via alabidungoldenson@gmail.com
Analysis
Why Plot Against Peter Obi Will Fail, by Boniface Ihiasota
Why Plot Against Peter Obi Will Fail, by Boniface Ihiasota
From the diaspora, Nigeria’s political trajectory is often assessed with a mix of distance and clarity. The patterns are familiar—elite coalitions, shifting loyalties, and strategic calculations ahead of every electoral cycle. Yet, as the 2027 general elections begin to gather, one constant remains: the enduring relevance of Peter Obi. Despite recurring narratives about efforts to edge him out of contention, the structural and political realities suggest that such plots are unlikely to succeed.
A central reason lies in the nature of Obi’s political base. Unlike traditional candidates whose influence is tied to party machinery or regional kingmakers, Obi’s support cuts across demographics, particularly among young voters and urban professionals. This base, which gained visibility during the 2023 elections under the Labour Party, is not easily dismantled by conventional political maneuvering. It is decentralized, digitally connected, and ideologically driven—qualities that make it resilient in the face of elite opposition.
Looking ahead to 2027, this evolving voter bloc could become even more significant. Nigeria’s youth population continues to expand, and with it, a growing demand for governance defined by accountability and economic competence. Obi’s consistent messaging around prudent management of resources and institutional reforms positions him as a natural beneficiary of this demographic shift. Attempts to sideline him risk underestimating how deeply this sentiment has taken root, both within Nigeria and among its diaspora.
The diaspora itself remains a critical factor in shaping Obi’s political future. Nigerians abroad, many of whom actively supported his 2023 campaign, have sustained advocacy through funding, media engagement, and policy discourse. Their influence, amplified by digital platforms, has helped maintain Obi’s visibility beyond election cycles. As 2027 approaches, this network is likely to play an even more strategic role—not only in mobilization but also in shaping narratives that counter attempts to delegitimize his candidacy.
Equally important is the broader transformation within Nigeria’s political landscape. The 2023 contest, which featured Obi alongside Bola Tinubu and Atiku Abubakar, marked a departure from the long-standing dominance of two major parties. Obi’s performance challenged the assumption that electoral success must always flow through established structures. As political actors recalibrate for 2027, this disruption cannot be easily reversed. Any strategy aimed at marginalizing him must contend with an electorate that has already demonstrated a willingness to embrace alternatives.
Another reason such plots are likely to fail is Obi’s personal political brand. His tenure as governor of Anambra State continues to serve as a reference point for supporters who view him as disciplined and comparatively transparent.
While critics remain, his reputation has proven relatively durable in Nigeria’s often volatile political environment. This consistency makes it difficult for opponents to construct narratives that significantly erode his credibility ahead of another electoral cycle.
However, the road to 2027 is not without challenges. For Obi to convert goodwill into electoral victory, he will need to strengthen party structures, expand his reach in rural areas, and possibly build strategic alliances. Nigerian elections are not won on sentiment alone; they require organization, negotiation, and adaptability. The resilience of his support base does not eliminate the need for political pragmatism.
Yet, even these challenges reinforce the central argument: efforts to plot against Obi are unlikely to achieve their intended outcome because they often focus on the individual rather than the movement. What emerged in 2023 was not just a candidacy but a shift in political consciousness. That shift—driven by a demand for competence and accountability—has continued to evolve beyond the ballot.
In all, Obi’s prospects for 2027 will depend less on the success or failure of political plots and more on how effectively he harnesses the forces already working in his favor. For many in the diaspora, his continued relevance reflects a broader transformation within Nigeria’s democracy—one that is still unfolding, but increasingly difficult to reverse.
Analysis
ADC and Its House of Confusion, by Alabidun Shuaib AbdulRahman
ADC and Its House of Confusion, by Alabidun Shuaib AbdulRahman
In the space of a few days, the African Democratic Congress, ADC has managed to compress into itself the full drama of Nigeria’s party politics involving elite bargaining, judicial intervention, strategic defections, and the ever-present shadow of electoral deadlines. What should have been a defining moment for a party positioning itself as the nucleus of a broad opposition coalition ahead of 2027 has instead become a study in instability. The ADC today is not merely in crisis; it is in a state of suspended legitimacy.
The roots of the present turmoil can be traced to the ambitious political engineering that began in 2025, when the party’s founding leadership led by Ralph Okey Nwosu ceded control to a new power bloc designed to attract heavyweight politicians across party lines. The arrangement brought in former Senate President, David Mark as National Chairman and former Osun State governor, Rauf Aregbesola as National Secretary. The idea was straightforward: rebrand the ADC into a credible “third force” capable of uniting disparate opposition figures, including former Anambra State governor and the Labour Party presidential candidate in 2023, Peter Obi, ex-Kaduna governor Nasir El-Rufai, and other influential actors disenchanted with both the ruling party and the existing opposition structure.
For a brief moment, the strategy appeared to be working. Meetings were held in Abuja and Lagos throughout late 2025 and early 2026, with coalition talks reportedly involving figures such as former Rivers State governor, Rotimi Amaechi, former Sokoto State governor, Aminu Tambuwal, and ex-Senate President, Bukola Saraki. Though not all formally joined the ADC, the party became the focal point of negotiations around a possible mega opposition platform. The optics alone elevated its status in national discourse.
But coalition politics in Nigeria has a well-documented vulnerability: it often prioritises elite consensus over institutional clarity. The ADC’s leadership transition, while politically expedient, lacked the procedural rigour necessary to withstand internal contestation. Almost immediately, dissenting voices within the party began to question the legality of the handover, arguing that due process as stipulated in the party constitution had not been fully observed.
This internal disagreement escalated into litigation, with factions approaching the Federal High Court in Abuja to challenge the legitimacy of the Mark-led leadership. The situation became more complicated when conflicting orders emerged from different courts, a familiar pattern in Nigeria’s political jurisprudence. At one point, a Court of Appeal ruling imposed a “status quo ante bellum” order, effectively freezing the leadership structure as it existed before the contested transition.
That order, however, did not settle the matter; it deepened the confusion. Both factions interpreted the ruling in ways that favoured their positions, leading to parallel claims of authority. Party activities slowed to a near halt, as uncertainty over who legitimately controlled the ADC made it difficult to convene meetings, conduct congresses, or engage meaningfully with the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
The turning point, if it can be called that, came on April 30, 2026, when the Supreme Court intervened. In a judgment delivered in Abuja, the apex court set aside the Court of Appeal’s status quo order and directed that the substantive case be returned to the Federal High Court for determination. The ruling was immediately seized upon by the Mark-Aregbesola faction as validation of their leadership, while their opponents insisted that the court had merely removed an interim order without deciding the core issue.
Legally, as a Lawyer friend argued, the latter interpretation is closer to the truth. The Supreme Court did not pronounce on who leads the ADC; it addressed only a procedural question. By vacating the preservative order, it reopened the space for the Mark-led executives to function, but it left the substantive dispute unresolved. In practical terms, the party now operates in a grey zone, neither fully validated nor definitively invalidated.
This ambiguity could not have come at a worse time. Nigeria’s electoral cycle, though seemingly distant from 2027, is already in motion. The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC requires political parties to adhere to strict timelines, beginning with the submission of updated membership registers and culminating in the nomination of candidates. While INEC has yet to release the full timetable for the 2027 general elections, precedents from previous cycles indicate that primaries and candidate submissions typically occur at least a year before the polls.
Under the Electoral Act 2022, particularly Sections 29 and 84, parties must conduct primaries within specified windows and submit their candidates within deadlines that are not subject to extension. Any irregularity in the process, especially one arising from disputes over party leadership can render a candidate’s nomination invalid. Nigerian courts have consistently upheld this principle, as seen in cases involving Zamfara and Rivers states in previous election cycles, where parties lost entire slates of candidates due to procedural defects.
For the ADC, this legal framework presents an existential risk. If the leadership question remains unresolved by the time primaries are due, any exercise conducted by one faction could be challenged by another, leading to protracted litigation that may ultimately disqualify the party from fielding candidates in key elections. This is not a theoretical concern; it is a scenario with ample precedent in Nigeria’s electoral history.
Meanwhile, the political consequences of the crisis are beginning to manifest. High-profile figures who had been linked to the ADC are reportedly reconsidering their options. Peter Obi, whose 2023 presidential bid galvanised a significant youth following, has been cautious in his engagement with the party, mindful of the legal uncertainties. Similarly, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso and some political bigwigs seen as potential power brokers in any opposition coalition are said to be weighing alternative platforms should the ADC fail to stabilise.
The logic behind these recalibrations is straightforward. Political heavyweights require not just a platform, but a secure one. A party entangled in litigation cannot guarantee ticket security, campaign coherence, or post-election legitimacy. In a system where court judgments often determine electoral outcomes, legal vulnerability is a liability no serious contender can afford.
The irony is that the ADC’s crisis is largely self-inflicted. In its bid to rapidly transform into a coalition platform, it overlooked the slow, painstaking work of institution-building. The absorption of powerful figures was not matched by the creation of mechanisms to manage their competing ambitions. Nor was there sufficient attention to aligning the party’s constitutional framework with the new political realities. The result is a structure that is expansive in ambition but weak in cohesion.
There is also a deeper structural issue at play: the tendency of Nigerian political actors to resort to the courts as the first line of dispute resolution. While judicial intervention is essential in a constitutional democracy, its overuse in intra-party conflicts often leads to prolonged uncertainty. Courts are bound by procedure and timelines that do not always align with the urgency of political processes. As the ADC is now discovering, a case can move through multiple judicial layers without delivering the kind of decisive clarity required for political stability.
Yet, it would be premature to write off the party entirely. The ADC still possesses assets that many smaller parties lack: national visibility, a growing network of political actors, and a narrative that resonates with voters seeking alternatives. If it can resolve its leadership dispute quickly, either through judicial determination or political compromise, it may yet reclaim its position as a viable opposition platform.
Such a resolution, however, will require more than legal victories. It will demand a conscious effort to rebuild trust within the party, clarify its organisational structure, and establish transparent processes for decision-making. The ambitions of key stakeholders such as Atiku Abubakar, Abubakar Malami, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, Rotimi Amaechi, Peter Obi, Nasir El-Rufai, and others must be reconciled within a framework that prioritises institutional stability over individual advantage.
The stakes are high, not just for the ADC but for Nigeria’s democratic trajectory. A fragmented opposition benefits the incumbent by default, reducing electoral competition and limiting voter choice. Conversely, a cohesive and credible alternative can energise the political landscape, introduce new ideas, and enhance accountability.
As things stand, the ADC is at a crossroads. One path leads to consolidation and relevance; the other to fragmentation and irrelevance. The difference between the two will be determined in the coming months, as court proceedings continue and political actors make strategic decisions about their futures.
For now, the party remains what it has become over the past few days, ‘a house of confusion’, where legal uncertainty, political ambition, and institutional weakness collide. Whether it can transform that confusion into clarity will not only shape its own destiny but also influence the contours of the 2027 general elections and the balance of power that emerges in their aftermath.
Alabidun is a media practitioner and can be reached via alabidungoldenson@gmail.com
-
Extra6 days agoEzeibe–Lassina Wedding Draws Top African Dignitaries To Marrakech, Morocco
-
Analysis7 days agoNDC As A New Bride, by Alabidun Shuaib AbdulRahman
-
Business6 days agoDangote Unveils Plan for 20,000MW Power Project
-
News6 days agoTrump Rejects Iran’s Peace Response, Says Proposal ‘Totally Unacceptable’
-
Analysis6 days agoBianca Ojukwu and Nigeria’s Firm Stand Against South African Xenophobia
-
Business6 days agoTrump Threatens Higher Tariffs on EU if Trade Talks Fail
