Lawyer accuses Wike, Rainbow Coalition leaders of breaching social gathering constitutions

A constitutional lawyer and public analyst, Justice Osai Ahiakwo, has criticised the promoters of the Rainbow Coalition, together with the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, over what he described as violations of constitutional and social gathering guidelines of their assist for President Bola Tinubu’s 2027 re-election.

Ahiakwo stated the coalition’s choice to mobilise assist for Tinubu whereas a few of its members belonged to political events with their very own presidential candidates raised critical questions on social gathering self-discipline, inner democracy and constitutional compliance.

He expressed considerations in an article titled “When Political Loyalty Becomes a Casualty of Electoral Convenience,” following the Rainbow Coalition presidential rally held on the Adokiye Amiesimaka Stadium, Port Harcourt, on November 7, 2026.

He notably questioned the participation of Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, figures within the rally, regardless of the social gathering having its personal presidential candidate, Senator Sandy Ojang Onor.

The lawyer stated that though political alliances and realignments weren’t inherently unconstitutional, political events and their members had been certain by their respective constitutions, guidelines and relevant electoral legal guidelines.

Citing Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution, which ensures freedom of affiliation, Ahiakwo famous that the fitting to political affiliation didn’t exempt social gathering members from obligations imposed by their events’ constitutions.

He additionally referenced the Supreme Court selections in Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) and Isah Shuaibu Lau v. PDP & Ors. (2018), which, he stated, strengthened the duty of political events to function inside established guidelines.

While acknowledging that the judgments didn’t instantly decide the legality of cross-party coalitions, he argued that the association have to be backed by correct authorisation from the related organs of collaborating events.

Ahiakwo questioned whether or not particular person political leaders might commit their events to presidential alliances with out acquiring the approvals required by their respective constitutions.

He additionally challenged the obvious contradiction by which abnormal social gathering members might face sanctions for anti-party actions whereas influential leaders participated in comparable political preparations with out scrutiny.

The lawyer additional warned that permitting events to retain their presidential candidates whereas campaigning for one more social gathering’s candidate might weaken social gathering identification and go away supporters confused about their events’ precise electoral positions.

He stated the coalition have to be subjected to scrutiny over its authority, transparency and obligations to the voters, somewhat than being handled as a handy political association pushed by the ambitions of influential leaders.

“My concern is not that politicians should be denied the freedom to form alliances or pursue political realignments. It is that political convenience must not be allowed to erode institutional discipline, weaken party identity or confuse the electorate,” he stated.

He maintained that democratic cooperation have to be constructed on clear agreements, constitutional authority and clearly outlined political obligations, stressing that democracy required consistency, accountability and respect for voters.