Legal scholar and ARISE News analyst, Sam Amadi, has dismissed reports suggesting that he is preparing to contest for a Senate seat under the platform of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Amadi clarified that posters currently circulating online and in some parts of the country linking him to a senatorial ambition were not produced or authorised by him, but rather by political support groups encouraging him to run for office.
Speaking during an interview on ARISE News on Tuesday, the former Chairman of the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission said he was not interested in contesting for any legislative position at the moment.
He stressed that his political aspiration remains firmly directed toward a future governorship bid in Imo State.
According to Amadi, although there have been growing calls from supporters urging him to seek a Senate seat, he has not accepted such proposals and is currently not preparing for any election.
“First, I’m not ready for an election. Those posters are for me to run for Senate, but I said no,” he stated during the interview.
He explained that his political journey had previously involved attempts to contest for governor and that his long-term focus still lies within executive leadership in Imo State rather than legislative politics.
“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,” he added.
Amadi further clarified that Imo State’s off-season governorship arrangement means there is still time before any formal political declaration regarding his future plans.
“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 said.
The public affairs analyst used the interview to also address broader issues concerning internal democracy within political parties, judicial intervention in party primaries and the legal interpretation of pre-election disputes in Nigeria’s electoral system.
He argued that the concept of “internal party affairs” has often been misunderstood and inconsistently interpreted within Nigerian electoral jurisprudence, particularly by the courts.
According to him, decisions of the Supreme Court on matters involving party primaries have at times created confusion because of conflicting interpretations surrounding what constitutes an internal affair that courts cannot entertain.
Amadi referenced judgments involving the Peoples Democratic Party and argued that courts have already recognised exceptions where constitutional rights or violations of party rules are involved.
“If you look at the Supreme Court decision in the PDP case, it is not really coherent or consistent. They make an exception for constitutional rights,” he said.
He explained that Nigerian courts generally distinguish between ordinary internal party matters and disputes arising from primary elections, where candidates allege unlawful exclusion or violation of established rules.
“The idea here is that if the matter relates to primary election, then candidates, as persons who allege violation of the rules or unlawful exclusion under their own rules and the constitution, can go to court,” he stated.
Amadi insisted that where political parties fail to comply with their own constitutions or procedures during congresses and primaries, aggrieved members should have legal grounds to seek redress in court.
“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,” he said.
He maintained that the phrase “internal affairs” should not be used as a blanket defence to prevent legitimate legal scrutiny of anti-democratic conduct within political parties.
“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,” he argued.
According to him, while some procedural or political decisions within parties may remain outside judicial review, issues involving breach of clearly defined rules become legal matters once members’ rights are affected.
“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 added.
Amadi also cited provisions of the Electoral Act requiring political parties to conduct democratic congresses and primaries, stressing that courts should not refuse jurisdiction when those provisions are allegedly breached.
“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,” he said.
On the role of the Independent National Electoral Commission in supervising party primaries, Amadi described the electoral body as a regulatory institution operating with specific compliance guidelines and legal benchmarks.
“INEC is a regulator. Firstly, it has checklists. If you look at the electoral law, INEC will say what qualifies as a proper democratic primary,” he explained.
According to him, the commission’s officials monitor party primaries using predetermined standards, including voter accreditation processes and certification of delegates eligible to participate in the exercise.
“INEC goes with those checklists — for example, certification of members who should vote and how it is done,” he noted.
Amadi further argued that the courts should accord substantial respect to INEC’s findings when disputes arise from party primaries, especially where the commission has already issued reports on whether due process was followed.
“When INEC makes a determination that a primary fails to meet democratic requirements, that decision deserves deference by the court,” he stated.
He said courts should first examine INEC’s report before making determinations on disputes arising from primaries and only overturn such findings where the commission acted irrationally or unlawfully.
“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,” he explained.
Amadi also stressed the need to strengthen the independence and authority of INEC in order to reduce the volume of election-related litigation in the country.
According to him, a credible and impartial electoral umpire would help resolve many disputes before they escalate into prolonged court battles.
“INEC should be helped to be authoritative. If INEC is not fair or independent, then its decisions will not command respect,” he said.
He added that the commission’s primary responsibility should be to enforce compliance with electoral rules and sanction violations where necessary.
“Its first job is to arbitrate, make clear rules and sanction violations. That reduces unnecessary litigation,” he stated.
Speaking on whether courts should intervene in politically sensitive disputes, Amadi argued that judges are not expected to determine political winners but rather to protect legal rights and ensure compliance with established laws.
“The court does not make political choices. It is not the court’s business to decide who becomes president or governor,” he said.
However, he maintained that once constitutional provisions, electoral laws or party rules are breached, the issue becomes a matter of justice and legal rights.
“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 explained.
Amadi concluded by advising aggrieved party members to carefully assess whether genuine violations occurred before approaching the courts.
According to him, access to justice should remain available where substantial breaches of electoral laws, constitutional provisions or party regulations can be established.
“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,” he said.
He reiterated that democratic processes within political parties must be protected and that rigid interpretations of “internal affairs” should never be used to shield clear violations of party rules or deny aggrieved members legal remedy.
