By Eric Elezuo

With crises bedeviling the rank and file of opposition parties; from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the Labour Party,  the NNPP, to Accord Party and more, it is still not uhuru for the ruling All Progressives Congress.

While the opposition parties are battling leadership issues, the APC seems about to be consumed by its own growth, and the leader, who happens to be the President,  Asiwaju Bola Tinubu’s system of handpicking candidates for electoral offices.

Recall that prior to the weekend, Tinubu had held a closed-door meeting with the extended leadership of the Senate at the Presidential Villa, where he rebuffed lobbying efforts by the leadership of the Senate to secure automatic return tickets for the ruling party’s sitting legislators ahead of the 2027 general elections, instead reaffirming the authority of state governors over the selection of candidates in their respective states. By this, the president made it clear that the governors have the right to decide who returns among the legislators, on both federal and state levels. The decision has since torn the party apart.

It must be added that the governors, by unwritten convention, will communicate and seek approval from the President for whichever candidate they intend to settled with. With the president having the last say of approval, it becomes imperatively clear that all candidates are direct consequences of Tinubu’s choice.

Tinubu had earlier hinted that he would “do everything within the party’s power” to ensure the return of serving legislators, a promise that raised expectations in the National Assembly, and enabled massive decamping to the ruling party from most distressed parties, including PDP and Labour.

A source told The Punch that “The meeting was to plead for automatic tickets for senators but President Tinubu insisted that the governor of each state has the influence over candidates.

While the president’s decision has enabled consensus, which he is tailored to, it has also created dissenting opinions among party as most lawmakers are not in good terms with their governors. More so, most governors, who have completed their tenures, and eyeing Senate seat, now are at liberty to dethrone whoever is occupying the seat presently.

A state like Rivers, where the governor, Sim Fubara, is still at loggerheads with his godfather, Nyesom Wike, is likely to slide to boiling point if the President’s decision stands. What this portends is that the APC will be divided across individual lanes, and a threat to their survival in the forthcoming election.

The President’s decisions has already started claiming casualties. In late March, Deputy Spokesman of the House of Representatives Philip Agbese, defected from the APC to the Labour Party, after his return prospects under the APC collapsed.

Meanwhile, the APC’s revised 2027 primary timetable, announced by the party’s Deputy National Publicity Secretary, Duro Meseko, at the 186th National Working Committee meeting, now pegs Senate primaries for May 18, 2026 while House of Representatives primaries are scheduled for May 15, with the presidential primary on May 23.

The consensus brouhaha appears to, even after the elections, continue to drag the party to the mud.

This is because the new provisions in the updated Electoral Act 2026 require written consent from all cleared aspirants for a consensus candidate to be valid. If even one aspirant refuses to sign, the party is legally forced back to a primary. This means that forced consensus is not just a political risk; it is a legal minefield that can lead to the total disqualification of a party’s candidates.

According to The Sun analysis, The most critical legal hurdle is that consensus is no longer a decision the party leadership can make unilaterally. For a consensus candidate to be legally valid, all cleared aspirants for that specific position must provide their written consent to withdraw from the race in favour of the consensus candidate.

Under the new Act, a single dissenting aspirant can collapse the entire consensus arrangement by refusing to sign the withdrawal letter. If the party proceeds without this signature, the nomination is void.

If a consensus arrangement fails or is challenged because an aspirant refused to sign, the law mandates that the party must revert to direct primaries where every card-carrying member votes.

Because the rules for consensus are now strictly codified, any breach is considered a pre-election matter.

Any aspirant who felt coerced into a consensus can approach the Federal High Court to challenge the nomination. If a court finds that the consensus was forced or that the mandatory ratification convention required by Section 87(3) was not properly held, it can nullify the nomination. Since the window for submitting candidate lists is now shorter — reduced to 90 days before the election — a party may run out of time to conduct a fresh primary, leaving them with no candidate on the ballot, similar to the APC’s 2019 experience in Zamfara.

Under Section 84(1), INEC retains the power to monitor all primaries. If INEC’s report indicates that a consensus was reached through intimidation or without the required signatures, the commission can refuse to accept the candidate’s credentials, citing a breach of the party’s own constitution and the Electoral Act.

Overall, the Electoral Act 2026 has essentially weaponized the individual aspirant. Forced consensus is now legally impossible if an aspirant has the courage to withhold their signature and sue.

Avoiding the legal minefields of the Electoral Act 2026 is possible, but it requires the APC to move away from executive orders and toward a more documented negotiation process.

To bypass the risks of litigation and disqualification, the party is currently employing several strategic maneuvers. In most cases, party elders engage aspirants before they are officially cleared to contest.

The party often convinces aspirants that a consensus with a promise of a future appointment or refund of their form fees is the safer bet.

Under Section 87(3) of the new Act, even a consensus must be ratified. To avoid a Zamfara scenario, the party is becoming meticulous about the paper trail.

The most effective way to avoid a lawsuit is to make the losing aspirants feel like winners. For this, the APC is using political MoUs: promises of Senate slots, ministerial roles, or state cabinet positions in exchange for a peaceful consensus. This is said to be part of the strategy stakeholders discussed when President Tinubu met governors elected on the APC platform in Aso Villa ahead of primaries.

But beyond the inherent legal implications, party members across states, who feel disenfranchised by the consensus anthem, have registered their displeasure, amid mild threats.

In the first instance, loyalists of former Ogun State Governor and Senator representing Ogun East, Otunba Gbenga Daniel, have rejected the purported endorsement of Governor Dapo Abiodun as the All Progressives Congress consensus candidate for the 2027 Ogun East Senate race.

They described the process as a carefully orchestrated exclusion of their principal and his supporters.

The loyalists, under the aegis of the BATOGD Movement, said the meeting tagged “Ogun East APC caucus meeting,” during which Abiodun was announced as the party’s consensus senate candidate, was in fact a gathering organised exclusively by the governor’s loyalists, in violation of the party’s guidelines on consensus candidate emergence.

Addressing journalists at the Sagamu GRA private residence of Daniel, the spokesperson of the group, retired General Olumuyiwa Okunowo, said members who were legitimately qualified to attend were turned away at the venue, the Adeola Odutola Hall in Ijebu Ode, on Monday.

“Some of our members who were eminently qualified to attend according to the Notice of Invitation were told pointedly to leave the venue, with the explanation that ‘this is a DA show’ and could be attended only by loyalists of the governor,” Okunowo said.

He said the group had no objection to the governor’s supporters holding their own meeting, but took exception to the use of the party’s name to disguise what he described as a premeditated agenda.

“We do not deny them their right to hold their own show, and we believe this must account for why our leader, Otunba Gbenga Daniel, was denied access to a ‘DA Show.’ No ill feeling, but they should have been bold enough to make the notifications clear about their true intention, rather than using the name of our great party to drag our leaders into ratifying a premeditated show,” he said.

Okunowo also raised alarm over what he described as a security siege on Daniel’s Ijebu Ode residence on Wednesday, saying armoured vehicles and hundreds of police officers were deployed around the property without any justification.

“We are deeply surprised by this turn of events, as we see no reason to warrant the deployment of armoured vehicles and detachments of security forces in their hundreds,” he said.

He called on security agencies to remain fair to all parties and not allow themselves to be used as instruments of political intimidation.

“We need to emphasise that we are running a democracy in Nigeria, and we are law-abiding citizens. We call on all security agencies to take a cue from the President’s posture by being fair to all and not allowing themselves to be used as tools in desperate hands to deny the freedom and rights of others,” Okunowo said.

Former Chairman of Ijebu North East Local Government, Otunba Tayo Onayemi, also questioned the legality of the process, saying, “Consensus, as recognised by law, must be based on voluntary agreement by all aspirants. Has the governor formally declared? Has he obtained nomination forms? Without these steps, there is no consensus.”

Also, former Commissioner Akogun Kola Onadipe argued that due process was ignored, saying, “Consensus requires that all aspirants willingly agree and endorse the candidate in writing. If one person disagrees, the party must conduct direct primaries. What happened on Monday falls short of these requirements.”

However, the APC Publicity Secretary, Femi Nuberu, dismissed the allegations, insisting that the meeting was properly constituted and that all decisions taken were legal and binding.

“The meeting was called by the senatorial chairman of the party, the senatorial organ of the party was seated and took decisions on behalf of the senatorial leadership, and somebody is sitting somewhere saying it’s a kangaroo — it is that person that actually doesn’t know what he’s doing,” Nuberu said.

On the allegation that Daniel was barred from the venue, the Publicity Secretary said no such report had been brought before the party, and advised any aggrieved member to formally file a complaint with the party leadership.

Abiodun had earlier announced the endorsement of Senator ‘Yayi’ Olamilekan as the party governorship candidate. The announcement has divided the party between the yes and no.

Also in Nasarawa State, Senator Aliyu Wadada, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Accounts, has secured a consensus endorsement for the governorship, which would see him exit the Senate, and make a way for the present governor, Abdullahi Sule. This arrangement has been resented by not a few in the state including political godfathers in the state.

In Oyo, Senator Sharafadeen Alli received the APC’s backing on April 15 to succeed Governor Seyi Makinde of the PDP.

These departures, alongside the growing list of senators whose governors are actively working against their return, may see a high turnover rate in the red chamber.

Nor a few of members of the APC has warned that the party is walking a constitutional tightrope, and unconsciously organising it’s own implosion.

An aggrieved lawmaker said, “There is no provision for an automatic ticket in the APC Constitution. The Electoral Act recognises the consensus and direct primaries option.”

“Whatever they discuss in their meeting cannot upstage the law. We should either go by consensus or adopt the primary election model,” the lawmaker added, noting that he was not privy to what was decided at the Senate leadership’s meeting with the President.

Also in Benue state, the fallout between Secretary to the Government of the Federation, George Akume, and Governor Hyacinth Alia over control of the APC structure in the state has pushed 10 of the state’s 11 federal lawmakers into Akume’s camp. It is not known where the governor may pitch his tenth in the coming days.

Across the states, not excluding Lagos State, the consensus and automatic ticket crises have continued to polarized the ruling party, and observers say it’s only a matter of time before the all-important implosion occurs.

And who knows who and who may be affected. This is even as opposition parties at a National Summit in Ibadan on Saturday, agreed to adopt a single presidential candidate.

Time will surely tell as 2027 draws dangerously close.

The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment in the appeal filed by the Taminu Turaki-led group of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) seeking to overturn the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which nullified the conduct of the party’s national convention, held last year in Ibadan, Oyo State.

A five-member panel of the apex court announced on Wednesday that its judgment would be delivered on a date to be communicated to all parties in the appeal.

Justice Garba Mohammed, who led the five-member panel, made the announcement shortly after lawyers representing parties in the appeal adopted their processes as briefs of their arguments for and against the appeal.

The appeal was filed by the Turaki-led group’s national executives of the party who emerged from the convention.

They had approached the apex court to challenge the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had nullified the convention for being held in disobedience of a valid order of the court.

While adopting their brief of argument filed on April 2, the appellants, through their team of lawyers led by Paul Erokoro (SAN), urged the Supreme Court not only to allow their appeal but also to dismiss a cross-appeal lodged against them by a leadership group in the party aligned with the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike.

Meanwhile, Lamido, who was represented by J. C. Njikonye (SAN), as well as the Wike-backed group represented by Joseph Daudu (SAN), filed preliminary objections seeking dismissal of the appeal.

The respondents insisted that, contrary to the contention by the Turaki-led group, the appeal did not fall within the sphere of the PDP’s internal affairs.

It was the respondents’ position that both the high court and the appellate court had rightly exercised jurisdiction over the matter.

Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, in a judgment last year, restrained the then-Ambassador Iliya Damagum-led National Executive Committee of the PDP from proceeding with the convention slated for November 15 and 16, 2026, in Ibadan, Oyo State.

Justice Lifu had ordered that the convention should not hold until an aspirant to the office of national chairman, former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido, is allowed to purchase interest and nomination forms to enable him to participate in the convention for the election of national officers.

The party, however, went ahead to conduct the convention in disregard of the orders of the court.

The PDP had predicated its action to conduct the convention on the grounds that the court lacked the jurisdiction to stop the convention, as the issue brought before it was an internal matter of the PDP, which no court has jurisdiction to delve into.

However, the appellate court in its judgment last month disagreed that the issue at the trial court was an internal affair of a political party, which courts cannot entertain.

The three-member panel of the appellate court subsequently nullified the outcome of the convention for being held in disobedience to the orders of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

Dissatisfied, the PDP approached the apex court, praying it to accept the appeal against the lower court judgment, set the judgment aside, and hold that the issue was an internal matter of the PDP, which both the Court of Appeal and the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain.

However, the respondents in the appeal urged the court to dismiss the appeal for lack of merit and hold otherwise.

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has dismissed the appeal filed by Julius Abure challenging the legitimacy of the Nenadi Usman-led leadership of the Labour Party (LP).

A three-member panel of the appellate court, in a Tuesday judgment, unanimously affirmed the January 21 judgment by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which upheld the legitimacy of the 29-member caretaker committee of the LP, led by Senator Usman.

In the lead judgment delivered by Justice Oyejoju Oyewumi, which Justices Abba Mohammed and Eberechi Nyesom-Wike agreed with, the appellate court held that the earlier Supreme Court judgment conclusively settled the leadership dispute within the LP by nullifying the convention that purportedly returned Abure as National Chairman.

Justice Lifu had, in the January 21 judgment, relied on an April 4, 2025, decision of the Supreme Court, which held that Abure’s tenure as the party’s National Chairman had expired. The judgment directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to recognize Senator Usman and other members of her committee as the legitimate leaders of the party, to the exclusion of all others.

The court further held that the lower court had the power under Section 251 of the Constitution to compel a statutory Federal government agency to perform its functions when it ordered INEC to recognize Senator Nenadi Usman as the National Chairman of the Labour Party.

It was equally agreed with the trial court that constituting the LP’s caretaker committee, headed by Usman, was a doctrine of necessity required to provide leadership in the party when a vacuum appeared to exist.

The court faulted Abure’s claim that the trial court denied him a fair hearing and accused him of abusing the court process.

The court also accused Abure of forum shopping by appearing before the Nasarawa State High Court in a case already decided by the Supreme Court, and of persisting in the claim the party’s leadership despite the apex court’s clear and unambiguous pronouncement.

It held that the appeal, marked: CA/ABJ/CV/255/2026, was devoid of merit and constituted an abuse of court process.

“On the whole, I agree with the decision and conclusion of the trial court as the same, being in accordance with the Constitution,” Justice Oyewumi held, adding that the lower court reached a reasonable conclusion that the Court of Appeal cannot fault.

While dismissing the appeal, the court awarded him costs of N10 million for wasting the court’s time on an issue that had already been conclusively determined.

Earlier, the court held that Nenadi Usman, as a juristic person, had the right to file the case before the trial court, and that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case.

The court also rejected Abure’s allegation that the lower court denied him a fair hearing, noting that the claim lacked any basis.