Party Primaries and the Test of Internal Democracy-Consensus or Imposition? Legal Questions, Political Realities and the Burden on INEC

By Kenneth Eze

In the early hours of Thursday, May 21, 2026, as collation officers in Taraba State attempted to tally votes from the All-Progressive Congress (APC) governorship primaries, gunshots rang out at a collation centre in Jalingo.

Witnesses described scenes of ballot snatching and thuggery, a stark contrast to the peaceful, sanitized process President Bola Tinubu would later praise at his polling unit in Lagos two days later.

The conclusion of the All Progressive Congress (APC) primaries across Nigeria’s 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory has once again placed the issue of internal party democracy at the center of national discourse.

From the House of Representatives primaries held on May 18, to governorship and state assembly primaries conducted between May 19 and May 21, and finally the presidential primary held on May 23, political developments within the ruling party have generated widespread reactions from party stakeholders, civil society organisations, legal analysts and ordinary Nigerians.

While the APC leadership has described the exercises as largely successful and reflective of democratic participation, many aspirants and party members across several states have openly rejected the outcomes.

Allegations of imposition of candidates, intimidation of delegates and party members, manipulation of figures during direct primaries, exclusion of aspirants, and abuse of consensus arrangements have trailed the process in many states.

These developments have renewed concerns over whether political parties in Nigeria are genuinely committed to democratic principles or merely paying lip service to the provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.

Under the Electoral Act 2026, political parties are permitted to nominate candidates through either direct primaries or consensus arrangements. However, the law also prescribes strict conditions for the adoption of consensus candidacy. Section 87(1) of the Electoral Act 2026 provides that:

“A political party that adopts a consensus candidate shall secure the written consent of all cleared aspirants for the position, indicating their voluntary withdrawal from the race and their endorsement of the consensus candidate.”

The law further states that where such consent cannot be secured from all aspirants, the party must revert to direct primaries.

This provision was introduced to prevent the abuse of consensus arrangements by party leaders and political godfathers. Legal experts and democratic advocates have repeatedly argued that consensus cannot lawfully exist where aspirants are coerced, excluded or denied equal participation.

Across many states during the APC primaries, however, reports emerged suggesting that consensus arrangements were declared even where aspirants openly protested the process or rejected the outcome. In several instances, aspirants alleged that no written withdrawal or endorsement was obtained from them before candidates were announced.

While the Presidential primary was a foregone conclusion given the lack of significant opposition to incumbent President Bola Tinubu, the sub-national elections exposed a ruling party deeply divided between the will of its members and the power of sitting governors.

This article provides a balanced, non-partisan analysis of the APC primaries, contrasting the lawful conduct of the exercises with the alleged violations of the newly signed electoral law. The focus is strictly on the APC, as other political parties are yet to conduct their primaries as of this publication.

The Legal Framework: The 2026 Electoral Act

To understand the crisis, one must first look at the law. The 2026 Electoral Act introduced radical changes to how parties nominate candidates. Specifically, the Act abolished the indirect or delegates system that had long been criticized for being susceptible to bribery and godfatherism. In its place, Section 87(2) mandates two methods: Direct Primaries and Consensus.

However, the “Consensus” provision is a legal minefield that many APC chapters appear to have stepped on. Section 87(4) of the 2026 Electoral Act strictly provides that a political party that intends to adopt a consensus candidate must secure the written consent of all cleared aspirants for that position.

The law further stipulates that where a consensus candidate is to be adopted, a special election or “vote of consent” must be conducted at a designated centre where the aspirants formally step down in writing.

Where this condition is not met—if even a single aspirant refuses to sign the withdrawal or consent form—the party must revert immediately to a Direct Primary involving all registered party members.

The States of Exception:The 13 Incumbents

In few states, the APC primary was a textbook definition of how a process should look. In states like Enugu, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, and Sokoto, sitting governors seeking a second term ran virtually unopposed either through consensus or direct primaries. When there is only one aspirant, there is no room for manipulation.

These exercises were largely hitch-free, peaceful, and compliant with the Electoral Act. There were no disgruntled challengers because there were no challengers.

Similarly, in states like Ebonyi, Delta, and Akwa Ibom, the affirmation of incumbents passed without the violence seen in competitive states.

That is to say that in states where outgoing governors are completing their constitutionally permitted two terms, succession battles reportedly became more contentious. The struggle by political interests to install preferred successors generated serious divisions within state chapters of the party.

In some states in the North-East and North-West, governorship aspirants openly accused influential political actors of hijacking the process. In parts of the South-South and South-East, complaints centered on alleged exclusion of party members from participation and the announcement of “consensus candidates” without transparent consultation.

Yobe State became one of the focal points of debate surrounding consensus candidacy after concerns were raised publicly regarding whether the process complied with the Electoral Act.

Similar concerns reportedly surfaced in other states where multiple aspirants contested the legitimacy of the adopted consensus arrangements.

The controversy has been particularly intense in states where incumbents are leaving office. In such states, fierce competition among aspirants created tensions that often spilled into public protests, parallel congresses and threats of litigation.

Observers noted that states where incumbent governors sought re-election for second terms generally recorded fewer disputes. In many such states, the governors were either unopposed or enjoyed overwhelming control of party structures, leading to smoother and less controversial primaries.

The Failure of Consensus: A National Violation

The primary source of the illegality stems from the attempt to force “Consensus” candidates in states where incumbents are term-limited or unpopular. Between Tuesday, May 19, and Thursday, May 21, several APC chapters announced “consensus candidates” without following the mandatory written consent provisions of the Act.

Nasarawa State: The state became a flashpoint where the party leadership, allegedly aligned with Governor Abdullahi Sule, attempted to impose Senator Ahmed Wadada as the consensus candidate.

However, aspirants including former Inspector General of Police Mohammed Adamu Abubakar refused to step down. Despite the lack of written consent from all aspirants—which is a direct violation of Section 87(4)—the party machinery attempted to declare a consensus.

This forced a chaotic direct primary where allegations of result manipulation ran rife. Mr. Adamu’s camp specifically alleged that state government agents interfered with result sheets, trying to “manipulate the results in favor of a preferred aspirant”. Because the legal trigger for consensus (unanimity) was absent, the resultant declaration of a consensus candidate is null and void ab initio.

Oyo State: The situation in Oyo State demonstrates the legal absurdity of the “consensus” claim when opposed. With 11 aspirants vying for the ticket, including former Minister Adebayo Adelabu and Senator Sharafadeen Alli, there was never a chance of a true consensus.

While Senator Alli was reportedly leading in the direct primary results, the earlier insistence by some party leaders on a consensus arrangement violated the Act because no written consent was obtained from the other 10 aspirants.

Delta North (Senatorial): The case of Senator Ned Nwoko is a microcosm of the fraud in the system. Senator Nwoko insists he won the APC primary for Delta North, alleging that the process was manipulated to favor former Governor Ifeanyi Okowa.

While this is a senatorial race, it highlights the method used across the board: central collation without ward-level transparency.

Nwoko noted that “halfway through the primary, we got a message on our phones that no results should be announced at the ward level—that they should be collected and then announced later at the national in Abuja”.

This centralization of collation violates the transparency provisions of the Electoral Act, which mandates results to be announced at the ward level.

The Direct Primary Fraud: Counting Ghosts

Even in states that abandoned consensus for direct primaries, the process often fell short of the legal standard due to gross figure manipulation. The 2026 Electoral Act requires that in a direct primary, votes must be cast and counted in a verifiable manner.

In Gombe State, Dr. Jamilu Ishiaku Gwamna was declared winner with a total of 556,081 accredited votes. However, opposition within the party argued that the figure was conjured without the corresponding accredited party membership register.

A similar pattern emerged in Rivers State, where the shadow of FCT Minister Nyesom Wike loomed large. Kingsley Chinda was declared winner, but the process was marred by allegations that the exercise was merely a “ratification” of an anointed candidate rather than a genuine election.

In Kwara and Bauchi states, the situation deteriorated so badly that the APC was forced to postpone the governorship primaries entirely while voting was ongoing. The “postponement of a primary” is not recognized in the Electoral Act 2026; once the window for the exercise passes, a party cannot retroactively hold a primary without INEC’s express permission, which was seemingly not granted in these specific cases.

One of the most recurring allegations during the direct primaries involved manipulation of membership figures and voting outcomes. Party members in several states alleged that figures announced at the conclusion of exercises did not correspond with the actual number of accredited participants.

Under direct primaries, all registered party members are expected to participate in the nomination process. The integrity of such a process depends heavily on transparent accreditation, credible membership registers and verifiable vote counting mechanisms.

However, complaints from party stakeholders in some states suggested that party officials merely counted individuals standing in queues before later announcing heavily inflated figures that could not be independently verified.

In certain locations, aspirants accused officials of adding fictitious votes to favour preferred candidates. Although some of these allegations remain politically contested and may ultimately require judicial determination, they have nonetheless contributed to growing public skepticism about the credibility of internal party processes.

The Presidential Primary: A Walkover

The Presidential primary held on May 23, 2026, proceeded without the dramatic tension of the state-level contests. As expected, President Bola Tinubu was the sole major candidate. While a little-known aspirant allegedly purchased form, there was no significant opposition to the President’s candidacy. Consequently, the exercise was largely a ratification of the President as the flag bearer. While peaceful, this process serves as a reminder of the power of incumbency rather than a test of democratic principles.

Nevertheless, critics argue that the relative calm at the presidential level does not diminish the seriousness of concerns raised across state primaries.

Sanctions and Legitimacy

Given the above, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) faces a constitutional crisis.

The Electoral Act grants INEC the power to monitor primaries and sanction parties that violate the rules. Because the window for primaries (set by INEC guidelines) closes by May 30, those states where the APC violated the consensus rules—Nasarawa, Oyo, and others—technically cannot go back to conduct fresh primaries.

The law is clear: a primary conducted in violation of the Electoral Act (specifically, failing to secure written consent for consensus) is invalid. INEC has the duty to “wield the big stick” and reject candidates from states where the process fell below the standard.

Critics argue that if political parties cannot conduct transparent internal elections, it becomes difficult to convince Nigerians that the broader electoral process will meet democratic standards.

The Independent National Electoral Commission, Independent National Electoral Commission popularly known as INEC, now faces mounting pressure to enforce compliance with the Electoral Act.

The Electoral Act clearly empowers aggrieved aspirants to seek legal redress where party guidelines or statutory provisions are violated.

Many legal analysts insist that INEC must not merely observe the process passively but should actively ensure compliance with the law. According to this position, where a political party fails to comply substantially with the requirements governing direct primaries or consensus arrangements, such nominations ought not to be recognized.

Some civil society organisations have argued that failure by INEC to enforce compliance would undermine public confidence in the electoral system and encourage impunity among political actors.

However, others caution that electoral disputes are often politically complex and legally contentious. They argue that INEC must act carefully within the boundaries of the law to avoid accusations of selective enforcement or political bias.

Another major concern raised by observers relates to the broader implications for the 2027 general elections. Many Nigerians fear that if irregularities witnessed during party primaries are ignored, they may set a dangerous precedent for the conduct of the main elections.

Political parties are expected to serve as vehicles for democratic participation. When internal processes become opaque, manipulated or exclusionary, the legitimacy of eventual candidates may be called into question.

The debate also reflects deeper structural challenges within Nigeria’s political system. Over the years, internal party democracy has remained weak across many political parties regardless of ideological leaning.

Although the current focus is on the APC because it has concluded its primaries, concerns surrounding imposition, manipulation and lack of transparency are not exclusive to one party. Historically, opposition parties have also faced allegations of undemocratic practices during internal contests.

This reality reinforces the need for a broader national conversation on political party reform, institutional accountability and democratic culture. Legal scholars have argued that the Electoral Act alone cannot guarantee credible internal democracy unless political actors demonstrate commitment to democratic norms.

The role of the judiciary may also become increasingly significant in the coming weeks. Aggrieved aspirants are expected to challenge several primary outcomes in court. If courts find that legal requirements were not substantially complied with, some nominations could potentially be nullified. The situation presents an important test for Nigeria’s democratic institutions.

For INEC, the challenge lies in balancing regulatory enforcement with institutional neutrality. For political parties, the challenge is whether they are prepared to respect democratic principles beyond mere rhetoric.

For the judiciary, the challenge is ensuring that the law is interpreted and applied consistently. Ultimately, the credibility of the 2027 general elections may depend significantly on how these early controversies are addressed.

Nigeria’s democracy cannot thrive where internal party processes are perceived as predetermined or manipulated. Citizens expect political parties to demonstrate transparency, fairness and accountability. Where those values are absent, public trust in democratic institutions weakens.

The APC primaries have therefore become more than just internal party contests. They have evolved into a broader national conversation about the future of democratic governance in Nigeria.

Whether these controversies will lead to meaningful reforms or simply become another chapter in Nigeria’s long history of electoral disputes remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the integrity of party primaries is inseparable from the integrity of democracy itself.

Conclusion

The 2026 APC primaries present a tale of two parties. In states with single-term incumbents seeking re-election, the process largely met the democratic threshold. However, in the majority of states where the race was open, the APC abandoned the rule of law.

The attempt to force “Consensus” without written consent, the central manipulation of direct primary figures, and the systemic imposition of candidates have left the party’s ticket legally vulnerable.

If INEC fails to enforce the provisions of the 2026 Electoral Act—by rejecting the candidates from states where the process was flagrantly violated, the credibility of the entire 2027 general election will be compromised.

Kenneth Eze is a Civil Society Actor and he wrote in from Abuja.