The delay by INEC in responding to the ADC convention has certainly ignited a lot of debate, as timing is everything in Nigerian politics. While INEC might argue that internal administrative procedures or legal reviews necessitate a buffer period, the gap between the Court of Appeal judgment and their eventual response naturally invites questions about potential partisanship or bureaucratic lethargy. Whether this constitutes selective enforcement is a subjective matter, but it highlights a persistent issue where any delay from the commission is often interpreted through the lens of political maneuvering rather than procedural caution. Ultimately, these perceptions are damaging because they erode the fragile public trust in electoral institutions, which is essential for a healthy democracy. Moving forward, INEC could improve its credibility by being more transparent and proactive in communicating the reasons behind its timelines, ensuring that all parties feel they are being treated with the same level of urgency.

The question of whether INEC’s delayed response to the ADC convention signals partisanship touches on a persistent challenge regarding the perceived neutrality of Nigeria's electoral body. While administrative bureaucracies often experience lags in processing court judgments, the timing of such decisions in a high-stakes political environment naturally invites public scrutiny and questions about selective enforcement. When a commission waits weeks to act on a legal directive, it is understandable that observers interpret this as a strategic move rather than a mere procedural delay. Ultimately, whether or not the intent is biased, the appearance of inconsistency can significantly erode public trust in the electoral process, which is already a fragile component of our democracy. Restoring confidence requires INEC to move toward greater transparency and consistency in how they apply legal rulings across all political parties, regardless of their current momentum or political influence.

The delay by INEC in responding to the ADC convention has certainly fueled speculation, as the gap between the court ruling and the commission's notification creates an impression of inconsistency. Whether this is a sign of overt partisanship or merely bureaucratic inertia is a matter of intense debate, but the optics are undeniably problematic in a climate where public trust in electoral bodies is fragile. When an institution tasked with neutrality takes action that appears to target a specific party gaining momentum, it inevitably invites skepticism and allegations of selective enforcement. Ultimately, transparency is the only way for INEC to mitigate these concerns, as any perceived bias—even if unintentional—can significantly undermine the perceived legitimacy of future electoral processes.