In mid-September 2026, shortly after the inauguration of new local government chairmen in Edo State on 4 September, Blessing Albert Ebhodaghe (also known as Blessing Ebhodaghe or Blessing Albert), the newly elected Executive Chairman of Esan West Local Government Area, issued a public directive at Onitsha Park in Ekpoma. Commercial and motor-park drivers operating in the LGA were ordered to wear APC-branded face caps associated with President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress. Caps or materials linked to any other political party or figure were banned. Defaulters faced exclusion from the parks or ejection. Ebhodaghe distributed APC caps on the spot, instructed the park’s deputy chairman to share the rest, and declared there would be “no friendship in this business” and “no excuse.” He framed the order as support for Governor Monday Okpebholo’s pledge to deliver 2.5 million votes for Tinubu’s re-election in 2027, citing road improvements as justification for political reciprocity.
This is not legitimate mobilisation. It is an abuse of public office that converts control over a public economic space into a tool of partisan coercion. Motor parks are essential livelihood spaces. Conditioning access on the compulsory display of one party’s symbols forces citizens to perform political allegiance under threat of economic harm. It offends the foundational principle that government at every level exists to serve all residents equally, not to conscript them into the ruling party’s electoral machinery.
Constitutional Provisions Violated
The directive strikes at the heart of Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution (as amended):
- Section 39: Freedom of expression, including the right to hold and manifest political opinions without interference.
- Section 40: Right to peaceful assembly and association, expressly including the right to form or belong to any political party or association (and, by necessary implication, the right not to associate or display allegiance to any particular party).
- Section 41: Freedom of movement and the right to reside and carry on lawful economic activity without arbitrary restriction.
- Section 42: Freedom from discrimination on the ground of political opinion.
- Section 14(2)(b): The participation of the people in their government shall be ensured.
- Section 15(2): The State shall promote national integration and prohibit discrimination on political grounds.
- Section 17(2)(a) and (b): Equality of rights and obligations before the law, and the sanctity of the human person.
- Section 45: Any restriction on fundamental rights must be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health, or for the protection of the rights of others. Partisan electoral mobilisation by a local government chairman fails this test.
These rights are further reinforced by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (domesticated), particularly Articles 9, 10, 11 and 2 (non-discrimination).
Other Laws and Electoral Framework Violated
Beyond the Constitution, the directive offends the Electoral Act 2022 and related frameworks governing fair electoral competition and the neutrality of public office. It undermines the principle that public resources and spaces under governmental control must not be deployed to coerce political support. INEC regulations and guidelines on political party activities and symbols presuppose voluntary association and free choice; compulsory branding of private economic actors by a public official inverts that principle. The Public Order Act and principles governing the use of public facilities further require that access to such facilities not be conditioned on political conformity.
Local government chairmen hold public trust. Using that office to impose partisan dress codes on citizens seeking to earn a living violates the duty of impartial administration inherent in the office.
Case Law Condemning Coercion of Political Association and Expression
Nigerian courts have repeatedly condemned attempts to compel association, discriminate on political grounds, or weaponise public authority against dissenting or non-conforming citizens. The following decisions (among others) affirm the principles violated here:
- Inspector-General of Police v. All Nigeria Peoples Party (2007) – Court of Appeal robustly protected freedom of assembly and association against restrictive administrative action.
- Agbai v. Okogbue (1991) – Supreme Court held that customary or associational rules cannot override constitutional freedom of association; compulsion is unlawful.
- Obi & Ors v. Nwihwe & Anor (2024) LPELR-62429(CA) – Court of Appeal condemned coercion to join an association against one’s will as a violation of Section 40.
- NUP v. INEC (2021) LPELR-58407(SC) – Supreme Court affirmed the regulated but fundamentally free character of political association.
- GBADESIRE v. Registered Trustees of Ikoyi Club 1938 (2019) LPELR-51623(CA) – Voluntary associations are supreme in their internal affairs; external compulsion is illegitimate.
- EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN & MGT OF BENUE SUBEB v. NASU (2021) LPELR-55724(CA) – Freedom of association includes the right not to associate.
- AMARAWA & ORS v. Registered Trustees of Association of Traders… (2019) LPELR-48265(CA) – Section 40 does not permit forced or anarchic associational arrangements.
- Decisions under the African Charter and ECOWAS Court jurisprudence (including cases involving Ken Saro-Wiwa and subsequent Nigerian applications) treating freedom of expression, association and assembly as interlocking rights that cannot be sacrificed to political convenience.
- Megawatts Nigeria Limited v. Registered Trustees of Gbagada Phase 2 Residents’ Association line of authorities – Courts reject forced membership of associations and the imposition of obligations on non-consenting persons.
- Motorcycle Operators Union of Nigeria (MOUN) v. Bida Local Government Council – National Industrial Court affirmed that local governments cannot obstruct lawful associational rights of transport operators.
- Broader Supreme Court and Court of Appeal authorities on Section 42 discrimination (political opinion) and the non-derogable core of Chapter IV rights in democratic competition.
- Consistent judicial insistence that public office holders cannot condition access to public or quasi-public facilities on political loyalty.
These authorities establish that neither custom, administrative convenience, nor electoral ambition can justify compelling citizens to wear a party’s symbols under threat of economic exclusion.
Brief Comparison with the Kuje Area Council Chairman’s Act
The Esan West directive is of a piece with the earlier statement by Samuel Danjuma Shekwolo, Chairman of Kuje Area Council in the FCT, who declared that residents must support the APC or leave the area council. That statement prompted Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/3984/2026 before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, instituted by Chronicles Reporters News Limited and Manasseh B.P. (an AAC member and resident). The plaintiffs seek declarations that the statement violates Sections 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the Constitution and relevant African Charter provisions, an order of public apology to be published in two national newspapers, and ₦100 million in exemplary and aggravated damages. The suit remains ongoing. Both cases involve local government chairmen attempting to convert territorial or facility control into instruments of partisan exclusion. The Kuje matter is already before the courts; the Esan West matter presents an even clearer case of direct economic coercion in a public livelihood space.
Why INEC and the Nigeria Police Force Must Act
INEC is constitutionally and statutorily charged with ensuring free, fair and credible elections and the integrity of the electoral process. Coercive branding of economic actors by public office holders ahead of a presidential election cycle is a direct threat to that mandate. The Commission must investigate, issue public condemnation, and, where appropriate, refer conduct that undermines electoral integrity.
The Nigeria Police Force has a duty to protect fundamental rights and maintain public order. Allowing local government chairmen to enforce partisan dress codes through threats of exclusion creates an atmosphere of intimidation that chills political participation and risks disorder. Both institutions must act promptly to halt further breaches, protect affected drivers, and deter copycat conduct across the country.
Reliefs Available Against the Defaulting LG Chairman
Affected drivers, park operators, civil society organisations and interested parties may seek:
- Declaratory relief that the directive is unconstitutional, null and void.
- Perpetual injunction restraining enforcement of the directive or any similar order.
- Mandatory order compelling the chairman to withdraw the directive publicly and restore unrestricted access to the parks.
- Public apology.
- Damages (including exemplary and aggravated damages) for violation of fundamental rights.
- Orders directing relevant authorities to investigate and prevent recurrence.
- Any further consequential relief the court may deem fit under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules and the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.
These remedies are well-established and routinely granted where public officials overreach into the realm of political compulsion.
The Esan West episode is a warning. Local government is the tier closest to the people. When its leaders treat citizens as electoral foot soldiers rather than free agents, democracy itself is diminished. The Constitution does not permit it. The courts have not countenanced it. INEC and the Police must not tolerate it.
Samuel Ihensekhien Jnr
Daily Trust of Nigeria Newspaper 2026 Unsung Hero
Email: sammyihens@gmail.com