ARISE News analyst, Sam Amadi, has clarified that he is not contesting any Senate seat or any election under the NDC in 2027, saying the posters linking him to such ambition are being circulated by pressure groups, not him.
Amadi in an interview with ARISE News on Tuesday made the clarification where he was responding to questions on internal party democracy, pre-election matters, and judicial intervention in party primaries.
He also confirmed that his political ambition remains focused on a future governorship bid in Imo State.
Amadi firmly distanced himself from the claims. “First, I’m not ready for an election. Those posters are for me to run for Senate, but I said no. I had tried to run for governor before and in this year, I will run for governor and decide where in house.
So for now, all those posters are pressure groups asking me to run for Senate. So I’m not ready for an election this second, but I’ll definitely run in the next second because Imo is off-season. So that clarifies my position.
I’m not ready for any office now.”
He reiterated that his political focus remains on the governorship of Imo State, not legislative office.
Addressing broader concerns about disputed party primaries, internal democracy, and the limits of judicial intervention, Amadi argued that the idea of “internal party affairs” has often been misinterpreted in Nigerian electoral jurisprudence.
“If you look at the Supreme Court decision in the PDP case, and it really [is not] coherent or consistent, you know, if you look at it, it’s two tense.
They make an exception for constitutional rights. So when the constitution is violated, they make an exception of what they call pre-election cases, meaning where primaries are involved, and they distinguish between congress and confession.
The idea here is that if the matter relates to primary election, then candidates, as persons, who allege violation of the rules or other forms of unlawful exclusion under their own rules and the constitution can go to court.”
He stressed that violations of party rules, especially where democratic procedures are not followed, are justiciable.
“So if it’s about leadership of the party, the majority of the Supreme Court view is that that is internal affairs. The minority disagrees…
If there are established rights by the rules of the party themselves, and they are violated, it should trigger the right to go to court. And I support that view.”
Amadi added that the notion of “internal affairs” should not be used to block legitimate legal redress.
“The notion of internal affairs is confusing the Supreme Court jurisprudence. Internal affairs is any affair within the party. Some of them can lend to judicial review, some may not.
Processes within the party may not lend themselves to review, but where established rules of the party are violated, that becomes a legal issue.”
He further argued that where the Electoral Act or party rules prescribe democratic primaries, courts should not decline jurisdiction.
“The Electoral Act states that congresses and primaries should be democratic. If a person alleges violation of party rules — for instance, that consensus must be attained in writing — it would be wrong to say they cannot go to court.”
On the role of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in monitoring party primaries, Amadi described the Commission as a regulatory body operating with defined compliance checklists.
“INEC is a regulator. So firstly, it has checklists. If you look at the electoral law, INEC will say what qualifies as a proper democratic primary.
INEC goes with those checklists — for example, certification of members who should vote, how it is done.”
He explained that INEC’s assessments are subject to judicial review.
“When INEC makes a determination that a primary fails to meet democratic requirements, that decision deserves deference by the court. The court’s first step is to ask: show me INEC’s report on this primary.
The court then reviews whether INEC acted reasonably, legally, and rationally. If it did not, the court can overturn it.”
Amadi emphasised that INEC must be strengthened to reduce electoral disputes.
“INEC should be helped to be authoritative. If INEC is not fair or independent, then its decisions will not command respect.
Its first job is to arbitrate, make clear rules, and sanction violations. That reduces unnecessary litigation.”
On whether courts should intervene in politically sensitive disputes, Amadi drew a distinction between political choices and legal rights.
“The court does not make political choices. It is not the court’s business to decide who becomes president or governor.
But once rules are made — either by the constitution or the National Assembly — and those rules are violated, it becomes a court matter because it is now about rights between members.”
He concluded that aggrieved party members must first assess whether violations occurred before approaching the courts.
“Those who feel aggrieved should take stock: is it a violation of electoral law, the constitution, or internal party rules?
If the violations are substantial, then they have access to the court under the dominant view of the Supreme Court.”
Amadi maintained that a rigid interpretation of “internal affairs” should not be used to deny justice in cases where democratic rules have clearly been breached.
Boluwatife Enome
