The Crisis Of Party Primaries

The withdrawal of former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, Isa Ali Ibrahim Pantami, from the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship primary in Gombe State should not be dismissed as an isolated act of political frustration. It signals something deeper – and far more dangerous. It is a warning flare.

Pantami’s reasons for withdrawing from the primaries included alleged violations of the Electoral Act 2026, lack of transparency, denial of procedural information, and what he described as a process rendered “unsafe and illegitimate.” These allegations strike at the very foundation of democratic legitimacy.

But Gombe is not alone. Across several states – from Nasarawa State to Kwara State, from Rivers State to parts of the South-West and North-West – the story emerging from the ruling party’s primaries is disturbingly similar. Allegations of candidate imposition, manipulated consensus arrangements, disqualified aspirants, opaque delegate systems, and accusations that governors and party power brokers are substituting political coronation for democratic competition have become recurring themes. Nigeria’s democracy has repeatedly failed – not always on election day, but long before election day.

The greatest threat to democratic credibility in Nigeria is often not the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), but what happens inside political parties during primaries. That is where democracy is first tested – and too often first betrayed by political actors.

The framers of the Electoral Act 2026 clearly intended to address this chronic weakness. The law sought to institutionalise transparency, regulate party primaries, define standards for consensus candidacy, and reduce the arbitrary abuse of party machinery. The principle was simple: political parties must themselves be democratic if democracy is to survive nationally.

Yet what happened in Gombe during the House of Representatives and Senatorial primaries – and now Pantami’s allegations – alongside reports from other states where aspirants were allegedly denied information on accreditation procedures, voting arrangements, collation centres, and observer access, only for results to be announced regardless, suggests that some political actors are willing to destroy everything Nigerians sacrificed to secure this democracy.

In Nasarawa, there have been renewed complaints over elite negotiations and consensus arrangements in senatorial and House of Representatives contests, reviving old anxieties about candidate imposition and exclusion. In Kwara, multiple aspirants openly resisted what they perceived as attempts to impose a preferred governorship candidate. In Rivers, screening controversies and allegations of selective clearance have deepened public suspicion.

Across these states, the pattern is unmistakable: party structures increasingly appear designed not to produce candidates, but to ratify decisions already taken elsewhere.

Consensus, in principle, is not undemocratic. It is recognised under Nigerian law, and political negotiation is a legitimate part of party life. But consensus must be voluntary and must emerge through genuine consultation. The process must allow dissent and preserve the right of aspirants to contest.

What Nigerians are increasingly witnessing is not consensus, but coercion disguised as consensus. When governors, godfathers, and party executives determine outcomes before voting even begins, primaries become ceremonial rituals—mere theatre staged to manufacture legitimacy. This should concern all stakeholders. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has a responsibility to ensure that the democracy Nigerians sacrificed to build is protected.

Already, many Nigerians feel politically hopeless and view politics with growing suspicion. When candidates themselves accuse their parties of violating their own rules, voters naturally conclude that elections are performative rather than meaningful.

The implications are serious. Today’s aggrieved aspirant often becomes tomorrow’s saboteur. Internal injustice breeds defections, litigation, anti-party behaviour, and long-term instability. Nigeria’s political history is filled with such examples.

This behaviour also degrades governance itself. A candidate produced through imposition owes loyalty upward to political patrons, not outward to citizens. Such leaders govern to protect networks, not the public interest. That is how weak governance reproduces itself.

Most importantly, it threatens the legitimacy of the 2027 general election. If parties cannot conduct credible primaries, they are already undermining the credibility of the general elections to come. The electoral process does not begin on election day; it begins with candidate selection.

INEC cannot retreat into procedural neutrality when there are clear questions about statutory compliance. Party leadership cannot issue statements about discipline while tolerating internal disorder. The presidency cannot preach credible primaries while party structures quietly undermine them. Citizens, too, cannot afford indifference.

Nigeria must decide whether political parties are merely private clubs or genuine democratic institutions. If they are private clubs, then let us stop pretending elections are about popular choice. But if they are democratic institutions, then internal democracy must be mandatory for all political parties.

Professor Pantami’s withdrawal matters because it exposes a broader truth: primary elections are increasingly no longer contests of ideas or competence; they are negotiations among elites, with ordinary party members reduced to spectators.

This is profoundly dangerous for democracy and a sure path toward systemic collapse. If Nigeria continues to tolerate these shortcuts, normalised manipulation, and repeated disregard for rules, then its democracy is heading toward a dangerous erosion.

Nigeria must not allow party primaries to become the graveyard of electoral legitimacy. The Electoral Act 2026 was designed to strengthen democracy. Its first major test is already here. Political parties—especially the ruling APC—must now decide whether they intend to obey it.