Primary elections are designed to deepen democracy, but in Nigeria, they have increasingly devolved into political theater, where predetermined outcomes are disguised as democratic choice. Under the legal and institutional framework of Nigeria’s Electoral Act 2022, political parties are permitted to conduct primaries through one of three methods: direct voting, indirect voting, or a consensus arrangement, but actual implementation has continually remained flawed.
This year, many political parties opted for the direct primary system. In principle, direct primaries are the most democratic approach, as they allow every registered party member in a given constituency to vote. This contrasts sharply with an indirect system in which a small group of ad hoc or statutory delegates votes on behalf of the entire membership. In a political climate where vote buying is prevalent, the indirect format favors wealthy aspirants; rather than persuading or mobilizing thousands of ordinary members, a candidate only needs to secure the support of a much smaller pool of delegates. This structural concentration of power makes delegate-buying the dominant strategy in Nigeria.
Paradoxically, even with some major political parties adopting the direct primary or consensus arrangement this year, the process remained marred by deep controversy and irregularities. The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), among others, was not immune to this cycle of dishonesty and violence. From the presidential primaries down to the other levels of political positions, the process has drawn intense public criticism for its chaotic nature, widespread violence, and allegations of grassroots data manipulation.
The choice of direct voting this year was construed to be a better option for a wider participation of party members in the primaries, as against the evil machinations of using delegates, which often reduces the democratic process to a mere auction. Under the delegate system, the rewards of leadership are not earned through merit but are simply handed to whoever can most effectively fill the pockets of the delegates.
Regrettably, even the direct voting system has been marred by failure. Emerging video evidence suggests that established numerical rules were defied to suit a preferred candidate. In several states, aspirants faced intimidation or were even deceived into withdrawing under the guise of supporting preferred candidates. These systemic failures cast a long shadow over the credibility of the upcoming 2027 General Elections.
Across various political circles, similar irregularities have been reported, notably during the African Democratic Congress (ADC) Presidential Primary. This led many aspirants to reject the results, citing a fundamentally flawed process. In Imo State, some ADC members even claimed that no primary took place, describing the event as “secret selection,” conducted without agents and ward chairmen, a process that questions the electoral integrity.
Recent primaries highlight a pervasive lack of internal democracy within Nigeria’s major parties. This deficit has fueled grassroots resentment towards godfatherism and forced consensus arrangements. Furthermore, the manipulation of voter registers and inflated vote counts continues to undermine public trust. In a landscape where dominant parties often guarantee a general election victory to their primary winners, these contests become ferociously competitive, leading to shock defeats for some incumbents and smooth returns for preferred candidates, and more so, bitter fallout among the political elites.
Eventually, these betrayals have sown deep-seated doubt regarding the fairness of the upcoming 2027 elections. Nigeria deserves better. Key institutions like the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the judiciary, and security services must prove that they are capable of acting as neutral arbiters come 2027. Confidence cannot only be measured through rhetoric but must also have a tangible outlook through performance. The 2027 general elections are now less than a year away; if these institutions prove their credibility, the temperature of voter apathy will drop. If not, the same old story will repeat.
Now is the time for INEC to get things right. These occurrences call for greater preparation and assurance by the commission, one that is truly convincing and contrary to the gimmick of the period of primaries. This is the time to tighten the monitoring mechanism to ensure free and fair elections. Our stories must not always be the same.
