The Sokoto State Government’s decision to seal the African Democratic Congress (ADC) office has triggered political controversy, but the central issue, according to the state government, is the ownership and legal status of the property rather than an attempt to restrict opposition activities.
The dispute raises questions about whether former Sokoto State Governor Aminu Tambuwal’s defection from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the ADC gave him the authority to transfer or allocate a building associated with his former party to his new political platform.
The argument is that leaving the PDP does not automatically confer ownership of its assets or the right to dispose of properties belonging to the party.
Some opposition figures have described the sealing of the premises as an attack on democratic freedom and an attempt to undermine opposition activities ahead of the 2027 general elections. However, the state government has offered a different explanation for its action.
The Commissioner for Lands and Housing, Nasiru Aliyu Dantsoho, said the government did not seal the premises simply because the ADC was operating from the building. He attributed the decision to a violent confrontation between PDP and ADC supporters at the property and a subsequent security report warning of possible further violence.
According to the commissioner, investigations into the building’s ownership and legal status showed that its Certificate of Occupancy remained registered in the name of the defunct Savannah Bank.
The government consequently approached the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC), which manages assets of failed banks, to clarify the property’s ownership and status.
The development has also drawn attention to the political position of the PDP in Sokoto State. Despite the defection of its 2023 governorship candidate, Sa’idu Umar, to the All Progressives Congress (APC), the party remains active and has reportedly adopted Alhaji Abubakar Abdullahi Sokoto as its consensus candidate for the 2027 governorship election.
The PDP’s internal leadership crisis has weakened its political standing, but the party’s challenges do not mean it has ceased to exist or surrendered its right to participate in future elections.
Its identity, structures and political interests remain distinct from those of former members who have defected to other parties.
The state government’s position is that it had a responsibility to intervene after receiving security warnings about a possible attack on people occupying the premises. It argues that allowing tensions to escalate could have resulted in injuries, loss of lives or damage to property.
From this perspective, securing the building pending clarification of its ownership was presented as a preventive measure intended to maintain public order.
However, the justification for the action ultimately rests on facts that require independent verification, including the property’s ownership records, the circumstances surrounding its occupation, the security report and the correspondence with the NDIC.
The controversy therefore involves two important issues: the right of political parties to operate freely and the legal authority to occupy or transfer disputed property. Resolving the ownership question transparently, while protecting the rights of all political actors, will be essential to preventing further tension in Sokoto State.
