Amnesty International Nigeria has condemned comments by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, over a statement in which he said he could “shoot” a television anchor during a live broadcast.

In a statement issued on Saturday, the organisation described the minister’s remarks as “reckless and violent,” warning that such language could incite attacks on journalists and undermine press freedom.

The group said Wike’s statement, made during a media parley in Abuja, violated broadcasting standards and carried the risk of normalising violence against media practitioners.

“Amnesty International Nigeria strongly condemns the reckless and violent language of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Mr Nyesom Wike, in which he stated that he can respond to a statement by a journalist with shooting,” the statement read.

It added that Wike’s remarks—“If there’s any way to break the screen, I would have shot him”—not only incited violence but also contravened Nigeria’s broadcasting code, which the National Broadcasting Commission is mandated to enforce.

The organisation warned that such comments from a public official could embolden attacks on journalists.

“What Wike said carries the danger of normalising violence and encouraging the targeting of journalists for just doing their job. This level of violent intent coming from a member of Nigeria’s federal cabinet is unlawful and unacceptable,” it said.

Amnesty International called on the minister to immediately withdraw the statement and issue a public apology.

The controversy followed Wike’s reaction to comments made by Channels Television anchor Seun Okinbaloye during a programme discussing the leadership crisis in the African Democratic Congress and its implications for opposition politics ahead of the 2027 elections. Okinbaloye had raised concerns about the possibility of a one-party state, a position the minister criticised as inappropriate for a journalist.

By Eric Elezuo

Following the Wednesday derecognition of the leadership of the main opposition party, the African Democratic Congress (ADC), by the Prof Joash Amupitan-led Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), diverse narratives have flooded media space as to the real reason behind the decision.

A section of the Nigerian population has wondered if the INEC is playing out a well written script or swaying to a thoroughly rehearsed and choreographed dance. Others have hinted that the electoral body, and its officials, who are products of the powers that be, are harking to the voice of their pay paymaster to ensure that the vocal fears of many Nigerians regarding the intention of the President Bola Tinubu-controlled Federal Government and All Progressives Congress (APC) to turn the country to a one-party state comes to reality.

These and many other developments in recent times have prompted the rhetorical question, is Amupitan’s INEC complicit? Are the popularly assumed Independent body dependent on the APC government to dance to their tunes? Will Amupitan, whom many Nigerians celebrated his appointment go the way if other INEC chairmen? Especially the immediate past chairman, Professor Yakubu Mahmood, who has been rewarded with ambassadorial appointment presently.

It would be recalled that INEC, on Wednesday through its National Commissioner and Chairman of the Information and Voter Education Committee, Mohammed Haruna, announced the Commission’s decision to withdraw their recognition of the ADC leadership, with special emphasis to the Chairman, Senator David Mark and Secretary, Rauf Aregbesola, in a statement.

It hinged its decision on a court order which directed the commission to maintain the status quo pending the determination of a suit challenging the legality of David Mark’s leadership of the opposition party. But the maintenance of status quo has been variously interpreted by interested parties to suit their various whims and caprice.

While the Amupitan-led INEC believes that status quo means going back to the days before the leadership of David Marj came on board, the ADC argued that the status quo promptly refers to the period before any law suit was Instituted. The development puts a heavy question mark on the judiciary, and it’s ambiguous declarations and judgment, and the lawyers, who most times, out of mischief, refuses to adhere to the correct interpretation in as much as they are aware what the interpretation is or should be.

Now, who interprets the interpreter?

INEC has said in a statement that the appellate court, in a judgment delivered on March 12, 2026, directed all parties to maintain the existing situation before the dispute arose and refrain from actions that could prejudice the outcome of the case.

“That the Commission would, in accordance with the Order of the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/145/2026 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, having regard to all the processes filed before the trial Court,” the statement read.

Reacting, the mark-led ADC and a faction of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), through their spokespersons, Bolaji Abdullahi and Ini Ememobong, insisted that the development was a calculated attempt to undermine democratic structures, alleging the involvement of the APC government and urging supporters to mobilise in defence of democratic principles.

Abdullahi said INEC’s position does not reflect the facts of the case and raises concerns about impartiality. He noted in a statement as follows:

“We reject INEC’s interpretation of the Court of Appeal ruling.

“INEC’s press statement is full of contradictions that fly in the face of both facts and reason. We shall clarify these contradictions for all to see. What is clear, however, is that INEC has caved to pressure and has chosen to side with the government against the Nigerian people,” the statement read.

“We are currently reviewing our options, and we shall make these known soon.

“Meanwhile, we call on our members and all Nigerians to remain steadfast as they await further directives.

“Nigeria is rising. ADC is rising,” he added.

As a follow-up to the rejection, the ADC called for the resignation or sack of the INEC Chairman, accusing him of complicity and colluding with the ruling APC to ensure no other political party is on the ballot paper to challenge the APC in the 2027 elections.

Mark, who addressed the world press conference noted as follows in a speech titled, This Attack on Democracy Will Not Stand.

On behalf of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), and lovers of democracy, I welcome you all to this world press conference.

Since 1999, Nigeria has been under democratic rule. After 27 years, we thought we could proudly celebrate the entrenchment of democracy, believing that the country’s dictatorial past has receded into history.

Our experience in the past three years or so since President Bola Tinubu came to power has however confirmed otherwise. Democracy is only sustained by the quality of freedom that it offers and guarantees, especially the freedom to choose, the freedom to participate, and the freedom to associate. These freedoms are so critical to democracy that without them, democracy dies.

Yet, in the past three years, we have witnessed a relentless assault on these very freedoms. The agenda is very clear, to create a situation where, in 2027, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu emerges as the only option left for the people, despite the widespread suffering and wanton killings going on across the country. The twin challenge of deepening poverty, and worsening security situation in the country did not just happen. They are direct consequences of the failure of this government. They know that Nigerians will not want this to continue. They know Nigerians will vote them out. This is why they would do anything to hang on to power by hook or crook.

Background to the Coalition

The coalition of opposition parties came about as a result of a collective search for democratic freedom and the desire to resist what was clearly a relentless assault on opposition political parties. The coalition leaders decided to come together under ADC to save multi-party democracy in Nigeria and rescue Nigeria from what was clearly an emerging dictatorship.

We did not come to the ADC by chance. We did our due diligence. We fulfilled all the party’s constitutional requirements, as well as all wider requirements under the laws that guide the management and operation of political parties.

In furtherance of this process, a NEC meeting was convened on July 29th, 2025, monitored by INEC officials. One of the conclusions of that NEC meeting was the dissolution of the National Working Committee of the party, and the ratification of a caretaker committee to take over the affairs of the party, with my humble self, David Mark, as the National Chairman; Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as the National Secretary; as well as others who have since been serving as officers of the party.

In addition to witnessing this process that brought in the new leadership of the party, a formal report of these resolutions was subsequently communicated to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). On September 9th, 2025, INEC then uploaded the names of the relevant NWC members of the party, based on the NEC resolutions.

One of the officials in the dissolved NWC was Nafiu Bala, who was one of the Deputy National Chairmen of the party. It is on record that Gombe resigned this position on 17th May, 2025. His resignation was also duly transmitted to INEC on the 12th of August, 2025. Regardless of his resignation, he decided to approach the courts on September 2nd, 2025, four clear months after his resignation, seeking to be recognised as the Chairman of the ADC.

What this means is that by the 2nd of September, when he approached the courts, INEC was already aware that Secretary Aregbesola and I had been inaugurated on the 29th of July in a process monitored by INEC. INEC was also aware that Gombe had resigned his position before the said inauguration on the 29th of July.

While this matter was in court, our team of lawyers approached the Court of Appeal, challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. In rejecting the appeal, the Court of Appeal ordered the parties including INEC to maintain the status quo ante bellum.

After this ruling on March 12th, 2026, we noticed a flurry of activities by lawyers associated with Nafiu Bala, requesting INEC to recognise him as the new chairman, or to de-recognise Aregbesola and I as the secretary and chairman respectively, in a curious interpretation of what constitutes status quo ante bellum. But we knew all along that Nafiu Bala and his lawyers were not acting on their own volition. They had become willing tools in the hands of a ruling party that had lost all support and goodwill of the Nigerian people; a government that had become desperate to cling on to power by all means even if it meant throwing the country into avoidable crisis.

In the past couple of months, ADC has become the only viable opposition party left in Nigeria. But this APC government does not want any opposition. While we were fully aware of all their desperate plans, we remained confident that no level of desperation would have driven the government and the INEC to take a direct action against the ruling of the court. But we were wrong.

It was therefore to our surprise, yesterday, 1st of April, that INEC issued a press statement after the close of business hours, announcing that it had decided to withdraw recognition for both the ADC leadership, which I head, and the fictitious one purportedly led by Nafiu Bala, thereby creating a false equivalence between the parties.

By purporting to recognizing Nafiu Bala as a faction, INEC seems to have conveniently forgotten that this individual had resigned his position, to the knowledge of INEC itself.

The Legal Position

The crux of the matter is the interpretation of what constitutes status quo ante bellum, which the Court of Appeal directed should be maintained. From all authoritative counsel at our disposal, there is no legal interpretation or precedent that could possibly lead to the outcome that INEC seeks to foist on our party.

Based on its press statement of yesterday, INEC is pretending to be confused as to what constitutes the status quo ante bellum. If this was so, under the circumstances, what one would have expected was for INEC to approach the Court of Appeal to request a judicial interpretation of what truly represents the status quo under the circumstances. But it did not do this. While posturing to be neutral, its actions confirm that it has become irredeemably partisan, working, as it were, towards a preconceived agenda. With its action, this INEC has left no one in doubt that it has chosen the path of dishonour and has become complicit in undermining Nigeria’s democracy. It therefore can no longer be trusted.

What we say in essence is this: INEC cannot choose to fix the status quo from the day it took the administrative action to upload the names of the new ADC officials on its website, because INEC does not have the power to determine for any political party who its leaders should be. That decision was taken on July 29th, not on September 9th. With its press release yesterday, INEC has invented a status quo that never existed, because there was no time that the African Democratic Congress (ADC) did not have a duly constituted leadership. What INEC has done is to create a situation that, by its own curious logic, leaves the ADC without leadership. This certainly cannot be the status quo that the Court of Appeal directed should be preserved. It is an INEC invention that is not known to any Nigerian law.

There is only one conclusion that Nigerians can draw from the April 1st action taken by INEC: THE ELECTORAL UMPIRE HAS TAKEN SIDES. IT CAN NO LONGER BE TRUSTED. As a matter of fact, INEC has acted in contempt of the Court of Appeal and has therefore acted unlawfully.

My fellow democrats, distinguished ladies and gentlemen. It is not the ADC that is under attack. This is a direct assault on Nigeria’s democracy and the right of Nigerians to choose, participate, and exercise their rights as free citizens. We have witnessed how the APC-led Federal Government has undermined, compromised, and coerced other opposition political parties. The ADC has risen as the last bastion between Nigeria’s democracy and full-blown dictatorship. And this is what worries them.

What is now unfolding is a concerted effort to dismantle that last bulwark. If we allow this to happen, it could signal the end of our democracy as we know it. If we yield to it, we would have become complicit by our inaction. We therefore hold it a duty to our democracy and the Nigerian people to say “no”.

Right now, I speak to Nigerians at home and in diaspora. I also speak directly to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu: with 90% of the National Assembly and over 30 of Nigeria’s 36 Governors in the APC, President Tinubu, what are you afraid of? If you are convinced that you have done well for the people who voted for you, why are you afraid of a free, fair, and transparent electoral contest? If you are indeed the democrat that you claim to be, why are you bent on destroying all opposition political parties?

Let me reiterate for the record; there are no competing claims on the leadership of the ADC. Nafiu Bala has no locus whatsoever. INEC should have waited for the Court of Appeal to decide this matter. Instead, INEC went ahead to do the bidding of the ruling party. But let us be clear: the role of INEC over political parties is not administrative: it is not managerial: It is simply supervisory.

For the avoidance of doubt, the leadership of ADC inaugurated at the 29th July 2025, NEC meeting remains the lawful leaders of the party. Party members and all Nigerians should therefore remain calm as there is no cause for alarm whatsoever.

It is important to state the net implications of this decision taken by INEC, in case they had not thought of it, or they just do not care:

First, by attempting to subvert the leadership of the ADC, INEC has already undermined our participation in the Osun and Ekiti elections taking place later this year.

Secondly, we have our congresses starting on the 9th of April, 2026, ending with our convention on the 14th April, 2026. We have given due notice to INEC, and they have acknowledged receipt of that notice. This is what the law requires of us.

Let us sound a note of warning. This INEC under Professor Joash Amupitan will be held directly responsible for whatever actions or reactions that follow this criminal path that it has chosen to take.

Our demand is therefore clear:

We demand the immediate resignation or sack of the INEC Chairman, Professor Amupitan, and all the National Commissioners. We no longer have confidence in them. We are convinced that they are incapable of conducting any credible election.

Let us also make it clear: we are proceeding with our party programmes, because there is nothing under the law that makes INEC’s attendance, a mandatory requirement. We have duly served INEC notice, and we will proceed accordingly.

We also call on the international community to take note of INEC’s actions of April 1st, and of the restraint we are exercising today. We urge them to recognise the clear threat to Nigeria’s democracy and stability, and to hold accountable those who are undermining the integrity of the electoral process.

We call on Nigerians to defend our democracy. This is a defining moment. Stand firm. Speak out. Participate. Resist any attempt to impose a one-party state on Nigeria. Nigeria belongs to all of us, and together, we must protect it.

It is often said, that the arc of history does not bend towards tyranny. It bends towards freedom.

And no matter how long the night may seem, the morning will come.

Nigeria will not be silenced. Nigeria will not be conquered.

Nigeria is rising, ADC is rising.

While Nigerians from all walks of life continue to react either positively or negatively, depending on the political divide, the ADC has insisted on going ahead with its National Convention scheduled for April 14, 2026, and its Congresses in deviance to INEC’s directive.

INEC had warned the ADC that it risks losing out completely it went ahead to conduct a Convention without the backing of the electoral body and with a court judgment on maintenance of status quo hanging on their necks. But the ADC would hear none of this, claiming that INEC is acting out a script, carefully written out by the Tinubu-led FG and APC.

Lending his voice to the accusation that Amupitan is backed by Tinubu’s government, prominent legal scholar Professor Chidi Odinkalu alleged that Professor Amupitan signed a resignation letter before taking office as a condition of his appointment — and that the threat of releasing it was used to pressure him into withdrawing recognition from the David Mark-led National Working Committee of the African Democratic Congress.

“I have it on the most impeccable authority that there is a pre-signed resignation letter by Chairman Amupitan.

“It was a precondition for his appointment. Ultimately, that had to be called in aid by those who persuaded him to issue this release. The threat of releasing it did the magic,” Odinkalu wrote on X.

Odinkalu also noted that INEC’s decision came roughly 60 hours after senior officials of the commission held meetings with the Presidency, justices of the Court of Appeal, and the Federal High Court — a sequence of events he said was not coincidental.

He further warned that the 2027 election “will not be much of an election,” stressing that the credibility of Nigeria’s electoral process, and the stability of the country, could be at serious risk if the allegations prove true.

Also speaking, a former Director, Voter Education and Publicity in INEC, Barr. Oluwole Osaze-Uzzi, faulted the commission’s de-recognition of the David Mark-led leadership of the ADC, insisting that the Opposition party should go ahead with its planned congresses despite its ongoing leadership dispute before the court.

Osaze-Uzzi said while he held the leadership of INEC in high regard, he had serious reservations about the commission’s interpretation of the Appeal Court order at the centre of the ADC leadership tussle.

Osaze-Uzzi argued that the order in question was not one that stripped either side in the crisis of legitimacy, but rather one that sought to preserve the subject matter of the case pending final determination by the High Court.

“Because the court did not say that INEC will withdraw recognition from either faction. All it did say is that both INEC and the contesting factions will be careful not to do anything that will usurp the power of the court and its ability to do justice on the matter,” he stated.

“I think the ADC should proceed with all that they are doing, as long as they do not impugn the majesty of the court and its ability to do justice on the case,” Osaze-Uzzi said.

According to him, the court did not direct INEC to withdraw recognition from either of the contending factions in the party, but only cautioned all parties against taking any step that could undermine the authority of the court or frustrate the judicial process.

The debate whether the Mark-led ADC defaulted when they took over the leadership of the party in July 2025 still remains on the front burner with the opposers, mostly APC adherents, lashing out at the opposition party, and hailing INEC’s decision while supporters of the ADC have not only blamed the INEC, but accused Tinubu of fear of having opposition.

The coming days promise to be dicey in the Nigerian political terrain, seeing that the ADC is the only viable opposition to Tinubu’s re-emergence in 2027.

While Nigerians watch events develop, the all-important question remains, is Amupitan’s INEC complicit?

Former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar, on Thursday criticised President Bola Tinubu’s condolence visit to Plateau State, describing it as a troubling reflection of what he called a growing disconnect between leadership and the plight of ordinary Nigerians.

The chieftain of the African Democratic Congress highlighted that the events in Plateau once again exposed “a disturbing and unacceptable approach to national tragedy.”

He said, “It is both shocking and deeply insensitive that several days after the gruesome killings of innocent citizens, the President’s so-called ‘on-the-spot assessment’ was reduced to a brief stop at the foot of his aircraft, never extending beyond the airport, never reaching the grieving communities, and never touching the pain of the victims.

“While families continue to mourn those slaughtered on Palm Sunday, the President chose to convert what ought to have been a solemn visit into a political spectacle, meeting party loyalists in Jos under the thin guise of official engagement. This is not leadership; it is indifference dressed as protocol.”

According to him, the President’s handling of the Plateau visit reflects a recurring pattern of what he described as insensitive and politically driven responses to national tragedies.

He referenced a similar condolence visit to Benue State in June 2025, which he said avoided the worst-hit community and turned into a political gathering, arguing that the repetition suggests a consistent approach rather than an isolated lapse.

“In Plateau, the President neither visited the bereaved families nor the injured receiving treatment in hospitals. He offered no concrete policy direction, no decisive security intervention, and no reassurance that such horrors would not recur.

“Instead, he staged a meet-and-greet within the confines of the airport, surrounded by politicians, traditional rulers, and party operatives—far removed from the anguish of the people. This is not only inappropriate; it is shameful. A leader who cannot stand with his people in their darkest hour cannot convincingly claim to be fighting for their safety,” he stated.

Atiku’s remarks come hours after President Tinubu visited Plateau State following last Sunday’s deadly attacks in Jos, particularly in the Angwan Rukuba area, where at least 27 people were reported killed.

Addressing her by name, Tinubu acknowledged her loss and assured affected families of government support, noting that no compensation could adequately replace lost lives.

Speaking through his spokesman, Bayo Onanuga, the President described the incidents as “barbaric and cowardly,” vowing that those responsible would be brought to justice.

The President was received on arrival in Jos by the National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress, Nentawe Yilwatda, Plateau State Governor Caleb Mutfwang, and other senior government officials.