Opposition party accuses Governor Ahmed Aliyu’s administration of political intimidation, warns against interference with democratic rights as controversy over ownership of sealed campaign office deepens ahead of 2027 elections.
By A1 News International
ABUJA, Nigeria | November 4, 2026.
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has declared that it will proceed with its scheduled political campaign in Sokoto State despite the closure of its campaign office by the state government, accusing Governor Ahmed Aliyu’s administration of using governmental authority to restrict opposition activities and undermine political competition ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The opposition party described the closure as an attempt to intimidate its members and frustrate its legitimate political activities, insisting that no state government has the constitutional authority to deny political parties the opportunity to mobilise supporters, present their programmes or offer Nigerians alternative political choices.
The ADC National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, made the position known in a statement issued on Tuesday, warning that Governor Aliyu would be held responsible if opposition members were subjected to violence or intimidation in the course of their political activities.
The development has introduced another controversy into the emerging political atmosphere ahead of the 2027 elections, raising questions about the relationship between state authority, opposition rights, property ownership disputes and the constitutional responsibility of governments to guarantee political participation.
ADC: GOVERNMENT CANNOT OWN THE STATE
In its reaction, the ADC accused the Sokoto State Government of confusing the authority entrusted to elected officials with ownership of public institutions and political spaces.
Abdullahi argued that the authority exercised by governors derives from the electorate and must be exercised within the limits of the Constitution and applicable laws.
He maintained that the closure of the party’s campaign office should not become an instrument for preventing the opposition from carrying out lawful political activities.
“The Sokoto State Government must understand that governing a state does not confer ownership. Public office is a temporary mandate from the people, not a licence to suppress political competition,” Abdullahi stated.
The party called on Governor Aliyu’s administration to reconsider what it described as attempts to frustrate opposition activities and ensure that all political parties enjoy equal opportunities to organise, campaign and engage voters.
PARTY WARNS GOVERNOR OVER POSSIBLE POLITICAL VIOLENCE
The ADC also issued a warning concerning the security implications of the dispute, particularly the possibility of confrontation between supporters of different political parties.
Abdullahi specifically cautioned that Governor Aliyu would be held accountable if violence or intimidation were directed against ADC members during their political engagements.
The party’s position underscores concerns about the responsibility of state authorities to maintain public order without discriminating against political opponents.
It also urged ADC members and supporters across Sokoto State to remain peaceful and law-abiding while insisting on their constitutional right to participate in political activities.
The party maintained that the closure of its campaign office would not force it to abandon its political mobilisation or withdraw from the state.
“Let there be no misunderstanding. The ADC will campaign in Sokoto State. We will not be intimidated, obstructed or pushed out of any part of Nigeria simply because those in power are afraid of political competition,” Abdullahi declared.
ADC CALLS FOR NEUTRALITY OF SECURITY AGENCIES
Beyond its disagreement with the state government, the opposition party called on security agencies and other public institutions to maintain strict political neutrality throughout the emerging campaign activities.
Abdullahi argued that security institutions exist to protect the Constitution, safeguard citizens and maintain public order, rather than advance the political interests of whichever party controls government.
He cautioned public officials against using their positions to obstruct lawful political activities, warning that those who violate the rights of political parties and their members could face legal consequences.
The ADC further maintained that political participation was a constitutional right rather than a privilege that could be granted, restricted or withdrawn at the discretion of a state governor.
The party challenged the ruling political establishment to allow an open political contest, arguing that democratic competition should not be undermined by administrative restrictions.
WHY THE SOKOTO GOVERNMENT SEALED THE ADC CAMPAIGN OFFICE
The controversy followed the sealing of the ADC campaign office by the Sokoto State Government over an alleged dispute concerning the ownership of the property.
The state Commissioner for Lands and Housing, Nasiru Dantsoho, announced the closure on Monday, explaining that the action followed a recent confrontation involving supporters of different political parties.
According to the government’s position, the property allegedly belongs to Savannah Bank, while the state government was awaiting clarification from the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) concerning its ownership status.
The ownership question is therefore central to the dispute, as the government has presented the closure within the context of a property-related disagreement and the need to address the circumstances surrounding the recent clash.
However, the ADC’s reaction has shifted the controversy beyond the immediate question of property ownership to broader concerns about political freedom, opposition rights and the conduct of public authorities during an election cycle.
It remains important to establish the legal ownership of the property and the specific legal authority under which the closure was carried out.
PROPERTY DISPUTE VERSUS CONSTITUTIONAL POLITICAL RIGHTS
The unfolding disagreement presents two issues that require separate consideration.
The first concerns the ownership and legal status of the property reportedly associated with Savannah Bank. That question requires clarification from the relevant authorities, including the NDIC, and should be determined through appropriate legal and administrative procedures.
The second concerns the constitutional rights of political parties and their members to organise, assemble, associate and participate in Nigeria’s democratic process.
Sections 40 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provide protections relating to freedom of association and freedom from discrimination, while Section 221 establishes the constitutional framework for political parties sponsoring candidates in elections.
These provisions form part of the broader democratic framework within which political parties operate.
Nevertheless, the right to political participation does not automatically confer ownership or unrestricted access to disputed private property. Equally, a property dispute should not become a basis for imposing restrictions beyond what the law permits.
The critical question is whether the government’s action was strictly connected to a legitimate property or public-order concern and whether the measures taken were lawful, necessary and proportionate.
2027 ELECTIONS: EARLY TEST OF POLITICAL TOLERANCE
With the 2027 general elections approaching, developments in Sokoto State highlight the importance of maintaining an environment in which political parties can compete without intimidation, unlawful obstruction or selective enforcement of government regulations.
For the ADC, proceeding with its campaign despite the closure represents an assertion of its political presence in the state.
For the Sokoto State Government, the immediate challenge is to clarify the legal and administrative grounds for its action while ensuring that public-order considerations do not unnecessarily interfere with constitutionally protected political activities.
The involvement of security agencies will also be significant in preventing political disagreements from escalating into confrontations among party supporters.
THE LAW MUST SETTLE THE DISPUTE
The controversy surrounding the closure of the ADC campaign office in Sokoto raises fundamental questions about property rights, political participation and the limits of executive authority in a democratic society.
While the ownership of the disputed property must be established through credible documentation and appropriate legal processes, the constitutional rights of political parties and their supporters must also be protected.
Neither political authority nor opposition status places any individual or institution above the law.
As the 2027 election cycle approaches, the Sokoto dispute offers an important test of how political disagreements, property disputes and competing interests can be managed within the framework of constitutional democracy.
The ultimate responsibility rests with the relevant authorities to ensure that the dispute is resolved transparently, the law is applied impartially and political competition is not compromised by the misuse of public power.
A1NEWS INTERNATIONAL EDITORIAL NOTE:
The NDIC’s clarification on the ownership of the disputed property and the specific legal instrument authorising its closure remain important outstanding facts requiring independent verification.
Leave a Reply