As Nigeria inches closer to the 2027 general elections, political parties are once again confronted with a familiar yet evolving dilemma: how to select credible candidates in a manner that is both democratic and strategically advantageous.

With provisions of the Electoral Act recognising direct primaries and consensus arrangements, the internal dynamics of party politics are set for another defining moment. At the heart of the debate is the choice between inclusiveness and control.

Direct primaries, which allow all registered party members to vote in the selection of candidates, have been widely praised for deepening internal democracy. On the other hand, consensus candidacy, where party leaders agree on a candidate without a competitive vote, continues to appeal to power brokers seeking cohesion and cost efficiency.

Direct Primaries: Democracy or logistical burden?

Advocates of direct primaries argue that the system empowers grassroots party members and reduces the influence of political godfathers. By giving ordinary members a voice, it enhances legitimacy and can produce candidates with broader appeal.

However, critics point to the enormous logistical and financial implications. Conducting nationwide direct primaries requires significant resources, coordination, and security; factors that many parties, especially smaller ones, struggle to manage. There are also concerns about voter manipulation, inflated membership registers, and the potential for disputes.

For major parties such as the All Progressives Congress (APC), the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and the African Democratic Congress (ADC), the challenge lies in balancing transparency with practicality. While these parties have experimented with direct primaries in the past, internal disagreements have often forced compromises, sometimes resulting in a return to indirect methods.

Consensus Candidacy: Unity or imposition?

Consensus arrangements offer an alternative that many party leaders find attractive. By negotiating behind closed doors, parties can avoid the acrimony and fragmentation that often accompany primaries. It also significantly reduces costs and expedites the process.

Governors and party administrators argue that direct primaries could trigger chaos in a country as large and complex as Nigeria. The experiences of the 2022 presidential primaries in both the APC and PDP further highlight how influential consensus and elite negotiations can be in determining outcomes.

Yet, consensus has its pitfalls. Critics argue that it undermines democratic principles by sidelining grassroots participation.

In many instances, so-called consensus candidates emerge from elite bargaining, leading to accusations of imposition and disenfranchisement. The risk, analysts warn, is that aggrieved aspirants may defect to rival parties or pursue litigation, thereby weakening party cohesion ahead of the general elections.

Legal framework and political reality

The Electoral Act provides flexibility, allowing parties to adopt direct primaries or consensus, provided due process is followed. However, it also places responsibility on parties to ensure transparency and fairness in whichever method they choose.

This flexibility, while beneficial, has also created room for internal conflict. Parties must now interpret and implement the law in ways that align with their internal structures and political interests.

For smaller parties and emerging coalitions, the choice of candidate selection method could be decisive. Direct primaries may offer an opportunity to build grassroots legitimacy, while consensus could help rally support around widely acceptable candidates without internal fragmentation.

Where the parties stand

Within the APC, many governors are believed to favour consensus as a way to maintain control over party structures. However, the party’s 2023 presidential candidate emerged through an indirect primary after a failed consensus attempt, revealing internal divisions.

State chapters remain split, with some pushing for direct primaries to challenge entrenched interests. The PDP, still grappling with internal divisions from the 2023 elections, appears cautious about direct primaries.

The fallout from its last presidential primary continues to shape internal calculations, making consensus both attractive and contentious. Smaller parties such as the Labour Party (LP) and the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP) face a different reality.

While their relatively smaller memberships make direct primaries more manageable, internal crises have shown that consensus arrangements can also trigger disputes if not handled transparently.

The crossroads Political parties are now at a critical juncture

First is the legal risk: the Electoral Act requires written consent from all cleared aspirants for consensus to stand. A single dissenting aspirant could collapse the arrangement and force a competitive primary.

Second is the role of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which is mandated to monitor primaries.

Direct primaries, given their scale, could stretch the commission’s capacity and raise concerns about effective oversight. Third is the strategic calculation for 2027: controlling the mode of primaries often determines who secures the party ticket.

While governors may prefer consensus to retain influence, presidential aspirants may favour direct primaries to bypass entrenched power structures.

What voters should watch

For voters, the key issue is not just the method adopted but the transparency of the process. Are party membership registers credible? Are consensus agreements genuinely voluntary? Are results from direct primaries verifiable and properly documented? Ultimately, the credibility of party primaries will shape public trust in the electoral process itself.

Criticism of the 2026 Electoral Act

The 2026 Electoral Act has continued to attract strong criticism from political parties, civil society organisations, and democracy advocates, with many warning that certain provisions could undermine the credibility of the 2027 elections.

Opposition parties have described aspects of the law as restrictive, particularly the limitation of candidate selection methods to direct primaries and consensus, effectively removing the delegate-based indirect system. Critics argue that this may amount to undue interference in the internal affairs of political parties.

Civil society organisations, including Yiaga Africa, the International Press Centre, ElectHer, TAF Africa, and the Kukah Centre, have also raised concerns about gaps in the law, especially regarding result transmission, voter protection, and inclusivity. A major point of contention remains the issue of real-time electronic transmission of results. Although efforts have been made to strengthen this provision, stakeholders argue that ambiguities persist, leaving room for potential manipulation.

The Nigeria Civil Society Situation Room has also flagged concerns over provisions relating to dual party membership and other restrictions, warning that they could limit political participation. However, supporters of the Act, including Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele and the Presidency, insist that it represents a significant step toward strengthening internal party democracy and reducing the influence of money politics and opaque delegate systems.

The road to 2027

As debate over the Electoral Act continues, stakeholders are calling for further refinements to ensure that the process reflects the will of the people and guarantees credible elections. Ultimately, the method of candidates’ selection will play a decisive role in shaping Nigeria’s political landscape.

Parties that strike the right balance between inclusiveness, transparency, and strategic coordination are more likely to produce candidates capable of earning both party loyalty and public trust.

As the countdown to 2027 continues, the real contest may not begin on election day, but within the internal mechanisms of political parties, where the future of Nigeria’s democracy is quietly being determined. (New Telegraph)