The opposition ADC has levelled fresh allegations against the ruling APC, claiming systematic intimidation through both hired thugs and state security agencies aimed at undermining the party’s organisational efforts ahead of the 2027 elections. 

The Context:

Kenneth Okonkwo, a member of the National Working Committee of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and former Labour Party spokesperson, publicly accused the All Progressives Congress (APC) of employing thugs and leveraging state security agencies to disrupt ADC-meetings and rallies across several states. 

Okonkwo, speaking on Arise Television, cited incidents in Kaduna, Lagos and Ekiti states where he alleges ADC gatherings were broken up under the supervision or negligence of security officials.  He also dismissed suggestions that the ADC was losing momentum, declaring the party “on fire” and predicting a major challenge to the APC in the next election cycle. 

The ADC claims this conduct breaches the provisions of the 2022 Electoral Act which mandates security agencies to protect all political parties’ lawful meetings and rallies. 

The Analysis: What Most People Are Missing

1. Beyond rhetoric, a proxy battle for 2027. While the statement appears as grievance-litany it may also signal that the ADC is positioning itself for a broader narrative of victimisation and revival ahead of the 2027 general elections. The claims of disruption serve to highlight the environment in which opposition parties are operating.

2. State capability meets political power. The accusation that security agencies are complicit (or passive) raises deeper concerns about state institutions’ neutrality and the operational space for opposition parties. If verified, this signals institutional capture, which could shift how electoral competition is perceived rather than just contested.

3. Operational impact vs narrative impact. Even if the ADC’s meetings were disrupted, the key question is whether this materially affects its organisational strength and grassroots mobilisation. The narrative of victimhood may energise supporters, but without operational infrastructure the effect may ebb.

4. Risk of escalation. Publicly accusing the ruling party of such destabilisation introduces risk of intensified inter-party conflict, potentially leading to legal or violent escalations. The ADC openly declaring the APC as “jittery” and predicting its defeat suggests that the political temperature may rise significantly.

The Implications:

• For the ADC: If the disruption allegations are accurate, ADC will need to convert narrative momentum into structural strength — building local branches, mobilising grassroots, and ensuring security for future events. This could become a rallying cry for supporters disillusioned with the status quo.

• For the APC: The ruling party faces reputational risk if these allegations gain traction — especially around fairness and democratic integrity. How the APC responds (deny, deflect, investigate) will influence its standing in the run-up to 2027.

• For Nigeria’s electoral environment: These allegations underscore concerns that political competition is increasingly intertwined with state machinery. If opposition parties cannot safely organise, the competitiveness of elections may weaken.

• For voters and civil society: The claims raise a red flag for those concerned about democratic space. Independent monitors and civil society groups may need to focus not just on vote-counting but on pre-election organising, freedom of assembly and institutional autonomy.

Takeaway:

The real story isn’t simply that the ADC says meetings were disrupted; it’s whether Nigerian democracy can guarantee a level field for opposition parties - and whether state power is wielded impartially.

As Okonkwo put it: The ADC is on fire. The only thing is that we have an APC that is using every method to intimidate and scatter the plans of the opposition.