Does the former Governor Aminu Tambuwal’s defection from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the African Democratic Congress (ADC) automatically confer on him the authority to transfer the office building belonging to the PDP to his new political party? This is the fundamental question at the heart of the controversy surrounding the sealing of the ADC office by the Sokoto State Government. It raises a critical issue about the limits of an individual’s influence in the political party. So Aminu Tambuwal’s decision to abandon the PDP for the ADC cannot, by itself, confer ownership of the former party’s assets or the authority to dispose of them on him. But rather than address this fundamental question, some opposition figures have chosen to portray the Sokoto State Government’s decision to seal the building as an assault on democratic freedom and an attempt to frustrate opposition activities ahead of the 2027 general elections. Beyond the political blackmail, however, the circumstances surrounding the government’s action deserve closer examination.
According to the Commissioner for Lands and Housing, Barrister Nasiru Aliyu Dantsoho, the decision was not taken because the building was occupied by the ADC, nor was it intended to deny the party its constitutional right to function in Sokoto State. Rather, it followed a violent confrontation between PDP and ADC supporters at the premises, while a subsequent security report warning of the possibility of further violence compelled the state government to intervene. Subsequent investigations into the ownership and legal status of the property revealed that its Certificate of Occupancy was still registered in the name of the defunct Savannah Bank, prompting the government to seek clarification from the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC), the institution responsible for managing the assets of failed banks.
It is also important to clarify that the Peoples Democratic Party has a governorship candidate in Sokoto State despite the defection of its 2023 flagbearer, Sa’idu Umar, to the All Progressives Congress(APC). The PDP has since adopted Alhaji Abubakar Abdullahi Sokoto as its consensus governorship candidate for the 2027 election. The party has experienced a leadership crisis, which made it a shadow of itself.
The implication is that Aminu Tambuwal’s departure does not mean the PDP has ceased to exist or has surrendered its right to participate in the 2027 governorship election. The party still has its own identity, structures and political interests, separate from those of Tambuwal and other members who have chosen to defect.
The question, therefore, is: what was the Sokoto State Government expected to do when confronted with a report that suspected miscreants were planning to launch an attack on those it called “unlawful occupants” of its office building,which could have led to a breakdown of public peace? Was the government expected to fold its arms and wait until the disagreement escalated into violence, with the possible loss of lives and destruction of property, before taking action? No responsible government can afford such indifference. The primary responsibility of any government is to protect lives and property, prevent the breakdown of law and order and ensure that political disagreements do not degenerate into public disturbances. Against this background, the government’s decision to intervene and secure the premises pending the resolution of the ownership dispute must be examined within the context of its responsibility to maintain public order.
No political organisation or group of individuals should be allowed to turn its premises into a theatre of violence, intimidation or disorder.
The discovery that the property’s Certificate of Occupancy remained registered in the name of the defunct bank introduced an entirely new dimension to the matter. If the property’s Certificate of Occupancy is still registered in the name of the defunct Savannah Bank, legitimate questions naturally arose about its current legal ownership, the authority under which it was being occupied and who had the lawful right to control, allocate or transfer it. Rather than make assumptions or take unilateral decisions about ownership, the government approached the appropriate institution, the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC), to establish the property’s ownership status. The clarification will determine the appropriate course of action. “We are yet to receive a reply. We are waiting for the NDIC,” Dantsoho stated.
The Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC), is the institution responsible for the liquidation and management of assets of failed banks.
This is a significant aspect of the government’s explanation. Rather than make assumptions about the property’s ownership or assert claims on behalf of any individual or organisation, the administration sought clarification from the institution responsible for managing the assets of failed financial institutions. Meanwhile, pending the NDIC’s response and further directives, the government took the precautionary step of sealing the premises to protect lives and property and to prevent a recurrence of the disturbances that necessitated its intervention in the first place.
It is important to appreciate the distinction between the government’s action and the political interpretation being attached to it. The sealing of a disputed property pending an investigation into its ownership is not, in itself, equivalent to banning a political party or withdrawing its constitutional right to operate. The two issues should not be deliberately conflated. The state government also made an open invitation to anyone claiming ownership of the property to come forward with the necessary documentation and establish his or her legitimate interest.
According to him, anyone who genuinely owns the building should approach the government and provide documentary evidence sufficient to establish the claim. Once the appropriate authorities have verified the documents and the NDIC has provided the necessary clarification, the government can determine the next steps regarding the property. The commissioner, however, maintained that pending the resolution of the ownership dispute, the building would remain sealed. This is the government’s stated position pending clarification from the NDIC and should not be confused with a final determination of legal ownership.
While the APC may not enjoy the affection or support of every Nigerian, and many citizens are perfectly entitled to disagree with its policies, leadership and style of governance, one fundamental principle must remain beyond partisan debate: the law applies equally to everyone. The fact that an individual belongs to the ADC, APC, PDP or any other political organisation does not confer the licence to commit crimes, invade properties, disrupt lawful activities, intimidate political opponents or threaten public peace. Political affiliation cannot become a shield against accountability, just as opposition status cannot confer immunity from the consequences of unlawful conduct.
The same constitutional freedoms that permit the ADC to establish offices, organise meetings and mobilise supporters also protect the PDP’s right to conduct its political activities without intimidation or disruption. Rather, it thrives on respect for institutions, the rule of law and the recognition that every citizen has rights that must be respected, irrespective of political persuasion. The same constitutional freedom that permit the ADC to establish offices, organise meetings and mobilise supporters is also the same rights that the PDP has to conduct its activities without intimidation or disruption.
Indeed, the test of democracy is not whether a political party can escape the consequences of conduct that would ordinarily attract legal sanctions, but whether all political actors are prepared to submit themselves to the same laws and standards of accountability. If the government has credible evidence that some members of political parties are about to engage in a criminal conduct, it has a responsibility to avert it before it escalates into a major conflict.
Therefore, the controversy surrounding the sealing of the ADC premises should not be reduced to whether the APC likes or dislikes the ADC, or whether the Sokoto State Government is comfortable or not with the activities of the opposition. Such arguments merely distract from the substantive issues that deserve public scrutiny. The pertinent questions are: Were there genuine security concerns arising from the reported confrontation at the premises? Was the property lawfully occupied? Who has the legitimate authority to determine its ownership and use? And was the government’s intervention justified under the applicable laws?
A responsible government cannot ignore credible threats to public safety, just as it must not disregard the legal rights of legitimate property owners. That is the standard against which its decision should be assessed, not the political identity of those affected.
Ultimately, political parties must understand that the freedom to participate in democracy comes with the responsibility to respect the rights of others and obey the law. Nobody should be allowed to hide behind a party membership to justify criminality.
That warning goes to the heart of the matter. Sokoto State, like other states in the North-West, has its own security challenges and cannot afford additional threats arising from political intolerance, violent confrontations or the activities of criminal elements hiding under political affiliations.
The Constitution guarantees freedom of association and the right of citizens to participate in political activities. However, those rights exist within a constitutional and legal framework that also protects the rights of other citizens and empowers the relevant authorities to maintain public order.
No political party should expect preferential treatment when its members or supporters violate the law.
There is also a relevant precedent in the Federal Capital Territory that provides us with the opportunity to examine the relationship between the authority of the government, and political party activities.In March 2025, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, through the FCT Administration, revoked the right of occupancy over the Peoples Democratic Party’s proposed national secretariat in Abuja. The decision followed alleged non-payment of ground rent covering the period between January 2006 and January 2025. The FCTA subsequently took steps to seal properties affected by the revocation exercise, including Wadata Plaza, which housed the PDP national secretariat. The administration said the latter property had accumulated 28 years of unpaid ground rent.
The PDP protested the action and described it as an attempt to undermine opposition politics. Nevertheless, the FCTA maintained that its action was an enforcement of land administration regulations and not an attack on the political party.
The relevance of this example is not that the circumstances surrounding the PDP property in Abuja and the ADC premises in Sokoto are identical. They are not. In Abuja, the FCTA cited outstanding ground rent and revocation of the right of occupancy, whereas in Sokoto, the government says the immediate concerns are a reported security incident and the unresolved ownership of a property registered in the name of Savannah Bank.The important point, however, is that political party premises are not exempt from the laws governing property ownership, land administration and public safety. A political party cannot acquire immunity from legitimate government action simply because it occupies a building or uses it for political activities.
Democracy is not a licence for lawlessness. One disturbing feature of Nigeria’s politics is the tendency to interpret almost every government action involving an opposition party as political persecution. While governments must be held accountable for their actions, opposition parties must equally recognise that democratic rights come with responsibilities.
It is important that the ADC leadership demonstrates responsibility by cooperating with the relevant authorities rather than rushing to turn every development into a political confrontation. There is a difference between defending democracy and exploiting democratic freedoms to justify actions that undermine public peace.
Moving forward for Governor Ahmed Aliyu’s administration, the challenge is to ensure that its response to the incident is transparent, and consistent with the law. The government must also communicate clearly with the public, particularly given the political sensitivity of the matter as the 2027 elections approach.
Ultimately, the controversy surrounding the sealing of the ADC office should be resolved through facts, transparency and the rule of law, not political grandstanding. The Sokoto State Government must demonstrate that its actions are legally justified, while anyone claiming ownership of the property must establish that claim through the appropriate documentation. Neither political affiliation nor government authority should be used to circumvent due process.
As Sokoto approaches the 2027 elections, preserving peace and political stability must be a collective responsibility. The ADC has every right to participate in the democratic process, just as the PDP, APC and other political parties have the right to operate freely within the law. Political competition should be about ideas, policies and the confidence of voters, not intimidation, violence or disputes over property ownership.
Ultimately, democracy demands accountability from everyone: the government, political parties and their supporters. Nobody should be above the law, and no political organisation should enjoy immunity from accountability.
Gatekeepers News is not liable for opinions expressed in this article; they’re strictly the writer’s.
