By Lemmy Ughegbe, Ph.D
When outcomes are settled before delegates arrive, what remains is not democracy, but ceremony. The recent APC National Convention, though orderly and legally compliant, has once again forced a difficult question into the open: are party conventions still spaces of choice, or have they become rituals of endorsement?
Across Nigeria’s political landscape, from the ruling APC to the opposition PDP, the Labour Party, and the African Democratic Congress, a familiar tension continues to define party politics. It is the tension between legality and legitimacy, between what is permissible under the law and what is desirable in a democracy.
At one level, the APC convention was orderly, coordinated, and largely hitch-free. More importantly, within the context of the amended Electoral Act 2026, the party operated in accordance with the legal provisions governing the emergence of candidates and party officials through consensus.
The law is clear in recognising consensus as a legitimate mode of selection, provided it is voluntary and backed by the written consent of aspirants. On the face of it, the APC has complied with this requirement.
That point must be made clearly, especially in a climate where political commentary often collapses legality into sentiment.
However, legality, while necessary, is not sufficient. Democracy demands more than compliance with minimum legal thresholds. It demands openness, competition, and genuine participation in decision-making processes.
This is where the broader concern lies, not just for the APC, but for Nigerian political parties as a whole.
There was a time, however imperfect, when party conventions carried the tension of uncertainty. Aspirants campaigned, alliances shifted in real time, and delegates exercised some measure of choice.
Today, that uncertainty is diminishing, replaced by a growing preference for managed outcomes and pre-convention alignments that significantly narrow the space for contestation.
Even within the APC process, developments emerged that complicate the narrative of seamless consensus. Some aspirants for positions within the party’s National Executive Committee reportedly raised concerns about being unable to access nomination forms, raising questions about inclusiveness at the entry point of participation.
More pointedly, Fubara Dagogo, an APC chieftain in Rivers State, challenged actions within the party, including his suspension, which he argued did not align with party constitutional provisions. He had earlier approached the court over his exclusion from a zonal congress despite meeting requirements, including payment for nomination forms, before opting to pursue internal remedies rather than halt the convention.
These are not insignificant details. They do not necessarily invalidate the process’s legality, but they do invite scrutiny of its depth and inclusiveness.
It is important to state that, at this moment, other major political parties, such as the PDP, the Labour Party, and the African Democratic Congress, have yet to hold their national conventions. As such, any sweeping judgement about their current processes must be approached with caution.
However, historical patterns within these parties suggest that they are not immune to the same pressures of elite negotiation and controlled consensus that shape the broader political environment. Different parties, similar tendencies.
Let us be clear, consensus in itself is not undemocratic. In fact, when genuinely negotiated, it can serve as a stabilising mechanism that reduces internal conflict and preserves party cohesion. The Electoral Act 2026 rightly provides a lawful pathway for consensus candidacy.
But the law also sets a standard. Consensus must not be imposed. It must be voluntary, transparent, and inclusive. Where even a single aspirant withholds consent, a democratic contest becomes mandatory.
This is the delicate line that political parties must navigate. Because when consensus becomes the default approach rather than one of several options, legitimate questions will always arise about the depth of internal participation. Not necessarily about illegality, but about whether the spirit of democracy is being fully realised.
At the heart of this issue is a deeper institutional challenge. Nigerian political parties continue to struggle with internal competition. Contestation is often viewed with suspicion. Disagreement is easily framed as disloyalty.
Ambition is tolerated, but usually within boundaries defined by party hierarchies. This disposition, while politically expedient, is democratically limiting.
Democracy, by its very nature, thrives on contestation. It is strengthened by debate, by the testing of ideas, and by the legitimacy that emerges from open competition. When that space is narrowed, even within the bounds of the law, the quality of participation inevitably suffers.
Nigeria does not lack legal frameworks. The amended Electoral Act 2026 provides a clear structure for party processes and attempts to deepen internal democracy. Yet, as is often the case, the challenge lies not only in the existence of laws, but in the broader political culture within which those laws operate.
Across parties, there remains a tendency to prioritise stability over contestation, cohesion over competition, and predictability over openness. The result is a legally compliant system that is often democratically restrained.
One of the most celebrated outcomes of party conventions is unity. And indeed, unity is important. Political parties cannot function effectively in a state of perpetual internal conflict. But unity must be distinguished from uniformity.
Unity is the product of inclusion and negotiation. Uniformity, on the other hand, can emerge from the quiet absence of dissent. A process that produces agreement without visible disagreement may be efficient, but it also raises legitimate questions about how that agreement was reached. This is not merely an internal party concern. It has direct implications for governance.
Political parties are the primary channels through which leadership emerges. If their internal processes are limited in competitiveness, the leadership they produce may lack the depth of legitimacy that comes from open contestation. In such circumstances, accountability is weakened before governance even begins.
If Nigeria’s democracy is to mature, attention must shift beyond general elections to the internal workings of political parties.
The law has provided a framework. What remains is the continuous effort to align political practice with democratic ideals, not just in form, but in substance.
As other parties prepare for their own conventions, there is an opportunity to reflect, to improve, and to expand the space for genuine participation within the boundaries of the law.
From the APC to the PDP to the Labour Party to the African Democratic Congress, the challenge is the same. To move beyond mere compliance and towards deeper democratic practice.
Because in the final analysis, democracy is not only about what is done correctly. It is about what is done convincingly.
Nigeria cannot afford a democracy that satisfies the law but leaves unanswered questions about its spirit.
And perhaps this is the most uncomfortable truth of all: when candidates are chosen before delegates convene, the convention becomes a ceremony, not a choice.
Dr Lemmy Ughegbe, FIMC, CMC
lemmyughegbeofficial@gmail.com
WhatsApp ONLY: +2348069716645
