Please Pay Attention: If you’re reading on PHOENIX, please click the “ Read Original ” button at the top right to view the full article.
According to a report by The Sun News, on Saturday, May 2, 2026, elder statesman and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Mike Ahamba, a prominent chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), has levelled strong criticism against President Bola Tinubu, accusing him of undermining democratic principles in the country despite being known as a long-time advocate of democracy who once risked his life in the struggle for its restoration.
He alleged that the current administration is indirectly overseeing what he described as the weakening and possible “killing” of democracy through efforts aimed at suppressing and destabilising opposition parties.
Speaking during an interview with Vincent Kalu, the legal luminary expressed concern over the political direction of the country ahead of the 2027 general elections.
He warned that the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) appears to be positioning itself in a manner that suggests it does not expect credible opposition at the polls.
According to him, there is a growing perception that efforts are being made to weaken or eliminate rival political platforms, a development he described as dangerous for Nigeria’s democratic growth.
He further argued that political competition is being deliberately undermined, insisting that no ruling party should seek to dominate the political space without viable challengers.
He compared the situation to a wrestling contest where one side attempts to prevent others from participating, stressing that such an approach contradicts the essence of democracy.
While noting the APC’s current control of several state governments and legislative institutions, he maintained that power should not translate into political monopoly.
In his words, “Why can’t they risk facing an opponent? They want to destroy the PDP, the African Democratic Congress (ADC), and the Labour Party (LP); destroy every party, and they say they have won. God will not allow that.”
Ahamba also reacted to concerns surrounding electoral processes and reforms, particularly issues related to result transmission and infrastructure challenges.
He described it as unacceptable in modern times for a country like Nigeria to struggle with efficient and transparent election result transmission, arguing that technological advancement should have improved electoral credibility.
He expressed disappointment that expectations surrounding real-time result transmission had not been fully realised in previous electoral reforms.
He further raised concerns about the credibility of elections, citing past local government elections as examples where results were allegedly declared without transparent vote counts.
According to him, such practices undermine public trust in the electoral system and raise questions about fairness and accountability.
Under the leadership of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), particularly its chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan, Ahamba addressed allegations of bias and public scepticism.
He stated that where doubts persist about neutrality, it is important for such concerns to be addressed transparently.
He suggested that an election referee must be widely accepted as impartial; otherwise, confidence in the process could be compromised.
He even opined that stepping aside might be necessary if perceptions of bias continue to grow.
Responding to INEC’s claim that an independent investigation cleared the chairman of allegations of political bias, he maintained that such matters should ideally be tested in a neutral and possibly judicial setting for proper determination.
He also cautioned against prolonged dominance by any political party, noting that history shows political power is always temporary.
Ahamba further criticised the handling of security and governance issues, particularly the integration of repentant insurgents into society and security agencies, describing it as a risky policy with long-term consequences.
He also condemned what he described as ineffective economic interventions, arguing that short-term distributions of goods do not address structural poverty or unemployment.
