By Festus Okoye
This article by Festus Okoye thoroughly examines the various issues concerning party primaries, from aspirants to nomination of candidates, primaries, register of members, party defection, internal party affairs and litigation, making comparisons with the older Electoral Laws
Introduction
Most political parties are preparing for their primaries to nominate candidates for the Presidency, the Governorship, and the National and State Assemblies, if they choose to do so. Some will nominate presidential candidates. Some will endorse the presidential candidate of other parties. Some will nominate gubernatorial candidates and candidates for the National and State Assemblies. Some may not have the capacity to field candidates, and may trade off their seats to those excluded from other parties or to disgruntled, ambitious candidates from those parties.
However, with the tight and contentious provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, and the self-inflicted and planted crisis in most political parties, party primaries and nomination processes may throw up more disputes than imagined. The party primary and nomination processes may also breed a new army of the angry, who may be short-changed by the contentious primaries and nomination processes of the parties and by their unwillingness, and to some extent, inability, to challenge their exclusion.
Party Nominations: Matters Arising
There is no doubt that the methods of nominating candidates for various elective positions in Nigeria have been evolving, fluctuating, and at times, regressing. Sometimes, the political party primarily determines who becomes its candidate, as outlined in its constitution; at other times, party godfathers dominate candidate selection. There are periods when the party aims to be genuinely democratic, with candidates nominated through the procedures set out in the party’s constitution. Conversely, there have been instances where party leaders submitted the names of individuals who did not participate in the primaries, to the electoral management body.
Occasionally, courts have intervened to restore order to the nomination process. At the same time, they emphasise that the party is sovereign and must have the authority to decide its candidates. At other times, the National Assembly has amended the Electoral Act to bring sanity to the party nomination process. However, it seems that political parties still find ways to circumvent due process and remain comfortable with their poor electoral conduct.
What then is the problem, and why are the political elite running in circles over internal party processes, the conduct of primaries and the nomination of candidates? Why are the parties not getting it right in screening, conducting primaries and nominating candidates? Why have the various amendments to the law failed to bring sanity to the process? Why has judicial intervention not been effective, in keeping the courts away from party issues and challenges?
The Electoral Act, 2010, specified only two methods for nominating candidates for various offices created under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). Under Section 87 of the now-repealed Electoral Act, 2010, political parties may select their candidates solely through indirect or direct primaries. The procedures for indirect primaries are clearly outlined, and the steps for direct primaries are likewise detailed in Section 87 of the Act. Under Section 85(1) of the Act, a political party wishing to convene a meeting, congress, conference, or convention must give the electoral management body 21 days’ notice of its intention to do so. The Electoral Act, 2010, did not provide for the consensus option in party primaries.
Under Section 85(2) of the same Act, the electoral management body may observe a meeting, congress, conference, or convention, whether or not it is invited. Section 87 of the Act set out transparent procedures for nominating candidates. In direct primaries, the party must conduct them in accordance with its guidelines, ensuring that all aspirants have an equal opportunity to be voted for. The party must also declare the aspirant with the highest number of votes as the winner of the primaries, and submit the name to the electoral management body.
Section 87 of the Act also contains detailed provisions governing the conduct of indirect primaries. Under Section 87(9), any party that fails to comply with the nomination process and procedures, shall have its candidate for election disqualified from contesting that position. The Act does not define the term ‘aspirant’, but the Judiciary, in various pronouncements during the operation of the Electoral Act, 2010, clarified who qualifies as an aspirant.
The Electoral Act, 2022, introduced the option of selecting candidates by consensus, in primary elections. Section 84(9) of the Act provides that a political party selecting a consensus candidate must obtain the written consent of all cleared aspirants, confirming their voluntary withdrawal from the race and their endorsement of the consensus candidate. If a political party cannot secure the written consent of all cleared aspirants to a consensus candidate, it must revert to direct or indirect primaries to nominate candidates for elective positions.
Section 155 of the Act defines an aspirant and a candidate. It defines an “Aspirant” as a person who aspires to or seeks to contest an election for a political office, and a “Candidate” as a person who has received a political party’s nomination to contest an election for any elective office.
If a political party fails to comply with the provisions of the Act during its primaries, its candidate for the election shall not be included in the election for that position.
Section 84(14) removes the High Courts’ jurisdiction to hear pre-election matters, and confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in this regard. It provides that an aspirant who alleges that any provisions of the Act or a political party’s guidelines have not been followed in the selection or nomination of a candidate may apply to the Federal High Court for redress.
However, Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022, confers locus standi only on any aspirant who participated in his political party’s primaries and who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by his political party’s candidate in the affidavit, or any document submitted by that candidate in relation to his constitutional requirements to contest the election, is false. Such an aspirant may file a suit in the Federal High Court against that candidate, seeking a declaration that the information contained in the affidavit is false.
In some cases, decided under the Constitution and the Electoral Act, 2022, it is the prerogative of the party to determine whom to sponsor for various positions in accordance with its constitution and guidelines. The Supreme Court, in a line of authorities, has held that the courts will not determine for a political party who to sponsor, or who its candidate should be.
The various courts, especially the Supreme Court of Nigeria, have laid down irreducible minimums and principles that must guide the conduct of primaries and the sponsorship and nomination of candidates.
1. Political parties must be allowed to run their affairs, and it is not the courts’ responsibility to choose candidates for political parties. Accordingly, the Courts have held that the sponsorship and nomination of candidates is the responsibility of the political party. The Courts have consistently held that the right of a Political Party to nominate or sponsor a candidate is a domestic right of the party, and that a member of the party has no legal right to be nominated or sponsored by his party. A Court therefore, has no jurisdiction to determine who a political party should sponsor. Nomination or sponsorship of a candidate for election is a political matter solely within the discretion of the party, as it is a pre-primary election affair of the party. However, where the political party conducts its primary and a dissatisfied contestant at the primary complains about the conduct of the primaries, the Courts have jurisdiction, by virtue of the provisions of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, to examine whether the conduct of the primary elections was in accordance with the party’s constitution and Guidelines. This is because, in the conduct of its primaries, the Courts will never allow a political party to act arbitrarily or as it pleases. A political party must obey its own Constitution. Per Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, J.S.C in PDP & Anor v Sylva & ors (2012) LPELR-7814(SC) (Pp. 35-36).
