‎
‎By Egerue Chioma Jane
‎
‎As Nigeria’s political landscape gradually takes shape ahead of the 2027 general elections, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) finds itself at a critical crossroads. Once viewed as a potential platform for opposition realignment and political alternatives, the party is increasingly grappling with internal divisions, defections, leadership disputes, and legal battles that threaten its unity and electoral prospects.
‎
‎In recent months, the ADC has occupied a prominent place in national political discourse, not necessarily because of its policy proposals or electoral strategy, but due to controversies surrounding its leadership structure and the movement of key political figures associated with the party. These developments have raised questions about the party’s stability and readiness to compete effectively in the next electoral cycle.
‎
‎Political observers note that internal cohesion remains one of the most important ingredients for any party seeking electoral success. For the ADC, however, maintaining unity has become an increasingly difficult task as competing interests, legal challenges, and divergent political ambitions continue to test the party’s resilience.
‎
‎Among the most significant developments affecting the ADC was the departure of key political figures, including former presidential candidate Peter Obi and former Kano State Governor Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, both of whom aligned with the National Democratic Coalition (NDC) following disagreements and uncertainties surrounding the party’s internal affairs. Their exits represented a major setback for the ADC, not only because of their political influence and national appeal but also because they reinforced public perceptions of instability within the party. The departure of such prominent figures further fueled concerns about the ADC’s ability to maintain unity and retain high-profile members ahead of the 2027 general elections.
‎
‎The developments quickly generated reactions across the political spectrum. Presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga dismissed Obi’s explanation for leaving the party, arguing that the move was motivated by political calculations rather than principle. His comments reflected the broader political contest over the narrative surrounding the ADC’s challenges and the motivations of those leaving the party.
‎
‎Beyond high-profile politicians, the party has also witnessed defections among lawmakers. The departure of senators and members of the House of Representatives has reinforced perceptions of internal instability and raised concerns about the ADC’s organisational strength. Such defections are often viewed as indicators of a party’s health, particularly when they occur close to major electoral contests.
‎
‎Senate President Godswill Akpabio’s remark that the ADC was “dead” further amplified public debate about the party’s future. Although critics dismissed the statement as partisan rhetoric, it underscored the extent to which the party’s internal struggles have become a subject of national political discussion.
‎
‎Despite these challenges, the ADC has continued to pursue its electoral agenda. The party announced its timetable for the 2027 primary elections and introduced revised nomination fees aimed at encouraging broader participation. Discounts for youths and women, as well as free nomination forms for persons with disabilities, were presented as measures designed to promote inclusiveness and strengthen internal democracy.
‎
‎The party’s presidential primary eventually produced former Vice President Atiku Abubakar as its standard-bearer for the 2027 election. While party leaders hailed the process as evidence of democratic practice within the ADC, allegations of irregularities by some contestants highlighted lingering concerns about internal trust and consensus-building.
‎
‎The situation confronting the ADC reflects a broader reality within Nigeria’s political system, where defections, factional disputes, and leadership contests frequently shape political fortunes. In many cases, political parties struggle to balance individual ambitions with collective interests, often resulting in crises that weaken their electoral competitiveness.
‎
‎For the ADC, the months ahead may prove decisive. The party’s ability to resolve its internal disputes, strengthen its institutions, and project a united front will likely determine whether it can emerge as a formidable force in 2027 or remain constrained by the challenges that currently threaten its cohesion.
‎
‎As the countdown to the general elections continues, the ADC’s experience serves as a reminder that electoral success depends not only on popular candidates but also on strong institutions, internal democracy, and the confidence of party members and the voting public.
‎
‎Egerue Chioma Jane
200 Level Student, Department of Development and Strategic Communication, University of Abuja
‎

Former Senate President Ahmad Lawan recently announced on his official Facebook page that he facilitated the recruitment of two of his constituents into the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA). The post identified the young men by name, acknowledged a serving DIA officer who guided them through the process, and included photographs of the visit.

Let me be clear about what this post is not about. It is not about whether facilitating appointments for constituents is right or wrong. That is a governance debate for another day. My concern is strictly the communication decision and what it reveals when examined through the lens of public relations and strategic communication.

The intention behind the post was likely to demonstrate responsive representation and reassure constituents that their elected representative is creating opportunities for them. Those are legitimate political communication objectives. However, strategic communication is not only about intention. It is also about weighing audience, context, stakeholder interests, and potential consequences before communicating publicly.

From that perspective, the post raises three important concerns.

First is operational security. The Defence Intelligence Agency is one of Nigeria’s most sensitive security institutions for good reason. Publicly associating the names and faces of new recruits, alongside a serving DIA officer, may create unnecessary visibility for individuals whose future responsibilities could require discretion. Whether or not immediate harm results, the disclosure introduces avoidable security considerations that deserve careful reflection. In strategic communication, the question is not simply whether information can be shared, but whether it should be.

Second is stakeholder exposure. Strategic communication requires practitioners to consider the ripple effects of every message across multiple stakeholders. In this instance, the post potentially creates reputational and security considerations for the former Senate President, the Senate as an institution, the Defence Intelligence Agency, the serving officer, and the two young men. Effective communication is not measured solely by visibility; it is measured by whether the value created justifies the risks introduced. In this case, the visibility gained appears disproportionate to the strategic value it delivered.

Third is message discipline. One of the enduring principles of strategic communication is balancing transparency with legitimate confidentiality. This is particularly important where national security institutions are concerned. The popular saying that “there is no such thing as bad publicity” has clear limits in contexts involving intelligence and security. Communication professionals are expected to assess not only what a message communicates, but also what it unintentionally reveals. That is why even private citizens often exercise discretion when discussing relatives or friends serving in sensitive security roles.

So, what might have been a more strategically sound approach? In my assessment, a private acknowledgment would have achieved the political objective without creating unnecessary public exposure. The beneficiaries could have become part of the record of constituents assisted, allowing the goodwill to circulate naturally within the community without drawing wider attention online. Sometimes, in strategic communication, restraint is the most effective message.

The broader lesson for public figures and their communication teams is simple. Every communication decision should undergo a basic risk assessment before publication. Beyond asking, “What does this post say about me?” communicators should also ask, “What does this post do to everyone else connected to it?” That shift in perspective is often the difference between communication that merely attracts attention and communication that serves the long-term interests of all stakeholders.

About the Author

Auwal Sani, ANIPR is a Public Relations and Strategic Communication scholar and practitioner. He is a Lecturer in the Department of Development and Strategic Communication, Faculty of Communication and Media Studies, University of Abuja, and serves as the Head of Programmes at the Impact Storytelling for Development Initiative (ISDI). His research and professional interests span strategic communication, public relations, development communication, crisis and risk communication, humanitarian communication, and the application of artificial intelligence in communication practice.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and are intended to contribute to professional discourse on strategic communication. They do not represent the official position of any institution with which the author is affiliated.

By Shariff Aminu Ahlan

It is outrageous, disturbing, unimaginable, undeserved, and simply difficult to comprehend how such a high-profile and well-attended event, organized to celebrate media excellence and promote discussions on strengthening media platforms that advance the Northern agenda, could deliberately exclude the Commissioner for Information of the host state, a man widely acknowledged as one of the most competent and outstanding Information Commissioners in Northern Nigeria.

The wave of criticism that followed the event was massive and centered on several noticeable shortcomings, including poor coordination, misplaced priorities, organizational lapses, and a lack of professionalism. However, the most ironic aspect of the entire event was the deliberate exclusion of the State Commissioner for Information.

As the summit was organized under the leadership of the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media, the apparent lapses and alleged collaboration with disgruntled elements pursuing hidden agendas ultimately diminished what should have been a historic gathering. Despite the presence of governor, commissioners of information from various states, media practitioners, academics, and other distinguished personalities, the event failed to make the impact many had anticipated.

To be fair, the organizers made considerable efforts to ensure the summit achieved its objectives. The discussions focused on Northern Nigeria and explored practical ways through which the media could contribute to the region’s development by promoting constructive narratives, intellectual engagement, and effective information dissemination.

Unfortunately, avoidable organizational shortcomings prevented the event from fully meeting expectations. More importantly, the exclusion of the host state’s Commissioner for Information became one of the most talked-about controversies surrounding the summit.

Had the organizers involved the Commissioner from the planning stage, his vast experience, administrative competence, and institutional knowledge could have significantly improved the coordination of the event. His contributions might have transformed the summit into a model gathering and eliminated many of the shortcomings that attracted widespread criticism.

Ironically, those blaming the Commissioner for his absence are not being fair. Such accusations only strengthen the belief that certain individuals are pursuing a carefully orchestrated agenda aimed at discrediting him. According to available information, the Commissioner was not invited to an event held within his own official domain. In keeping with professional ethics and protocol, he chose not to attend an event from which he had been deliberately excluded. The consequences of that decision. and of the organizers’ actions, were evident for everyone to see.

As for those working tirelessly to push the Commissioner into political irrelevance, they should understand that their alleged campaign has become increasingly obvious. More importantly, the Governor has continued to demonstrate confidence in him. Beyond that, the Commissioner has continued to receive recognition and commendation for his dedication, professionalism, and unwavering commitment to the responsibilities entrusted to him.

History has repeatedly shown that competence, professionalism, and integrity ultimately outlast conspiracy, manipulation, and political scheming.

Shariff Aminu Ahlan
APC Intellectual Warrior
Realahlan0101@gmail.com