Party Loyalty Is Not a Costume: APC Must Not Normalize Political Indiscipline in Benue -By Leonard Karshima Shilgba

Politics, especially party politics, is built on loyalty, discipline, and clarity of purpose. A political party cannot survive—let alone govern effectively—if its members treat party allegiance as a disposable garment to be worn or removed at convenience.

As a foundation member of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Benue State, I have watched with deep concern the disturbing reports that some APC public officials attended an expanded caucus meeting of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) held at the Makurdi residence of former Benue State governor, Samuel Ortom. According to media reports, those present reportedly included prominent APC figures such as Pius Akutah, Mathias Byuan, Michael Aondoakaa, and Sebastine Hon—individuals widely known to be politically aligned with the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, George Akume.

The report suggests that the gathering was framed as part of political consultations allegedly aimed at mobilizing support for Bola Ahmed Tinubu ahead of the 2027 elections. But even if that claim were true, it raises serious questions that cannot be ignored by conscientious members of the APC.

First, since when did party loyalty permit officials of a ruling party to attend the caucus meetings of an opposition party?

A caucus meeting is not a social gathering. It is a strategic meeting of a political party to deliberate on its internal plans, ambitions, and electoral strategies. When members of the APC openly participate in such a forum convened by the PDP, the optics are troubling, and the implications are even more serious.

Indeed, the political environment in Benue State is already fragile, with various realignments and emerging coalitions ahead of the 2027 elections. At such a time, the ruling party must demonstrate clarity of purpose and discipline—not ambiguity.

This episode therefore raises several questions that deserve clear answers.

Was the SGF, Senator George Akume, consulted by those described as his political loyalists before they attended the PDP expanded caucus meeting?

If he was consulted, did he approve their participation directly or indirectly?

If he was not consulted, then another troubling question emerges: has the SGF lost control of the political loyalists widely believed to operate under his influence? If that is the case, what does it suggest about the coherence of the political bloc associated with him within the APC and, by extension, the broader administration of President Tinubu?

These are not idle questions. They go to the heart of party discipline, which remains the lifeblood of every successful political organization.

The APC National Executive Committee (NEC) and National Working Committee (NWC) must also confront a critical institutional question: Will this apparent breach of party discipline be overlooked?

If it is ignored, it may send a dangerous signal—that members of the APC are free to fraternize with opposition structures while still claiming loyalty to the ruling party. Such a precedent would undermine party cohesion and embolden opportunistic political behavior.

Let us be clear: political consultation is not a crime, and dialogue across political divides is sometimes necessary in a democracy. But there is a world of difference between informal consultation and attending the structured caucus meeting of an opposition party inside the residence of one of its leading figures.

That distinction must not be blurred.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is a politician whose career has been defined by an unusual commitment to loyalty and political organization. History records that he demonstrated courage and steadfastness during the struggle following the annulment of the June 12 election and later stood firmly by political allies in difficult moments. That tradition of loyalty is part of the political culture that built the APC.

Those who imagine that President Tinubu will applaud acts that weaken party cohesion simply because they cloak them in the language of “mobilizing support” may be making a grave miscalculation.

Political loyalty cannot be outsourced to rhetoric.

Dropping the President’s name in opposition gatherings does not excuse conduct that undermines the integrity of one’s own party. On the contrary, it risks embarrassing the very leader in whose name such actions are supposedly undertaken.

For the APC in Benue State, the path forward must be guided by clarity. Party members must know where they stand. They cannot be APC in Abuja and PDP in Makurdi drawing rooms.

A ruling party that tolerates ambiguity among its leaders gradually erodes the confidence of its grassroots supporters. Those who have labored for years to build the APC in Benue deserve better than a spectacle of political double-dealing.

If our party is to retain credibility ahead of the 2027 elections, the message must be unmistakable: discipline matters, loyalty matters, and party identity is not negotiable.

Anything less risks turning a great political movement into a marketplace of convenience.

And that would be a tragedy for the very ideals that gave birth to the APC.