Primaries, Nomination, Rumours, and the Rule of Law: Why Selective Compliance Threatens Democracy -By Leonard Karshima Shilgba

The torrent of social media commentaries following the APC primaries in Benue State has once again exposed a disturbing reality: many citizens are either unfamiliar with the legal framework governing party nominations or are willing to suspend their commitment to the rule of law whenever illegality appears to favour their political preferences.

A constitutional democracy cannot survive on rumours. It certainly cannot be sustained by selective obedience to the law.

Separating Facts from Rumours

Several facts are not in dispute.

First, the APC conducted its primary elections for the National Assembly and governorship positions through committees appointed by the party’s national leadership. These exercises were monitored by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), as required under Nigeria’s Electoral Act.

Second, following the primaries, the designated returning officers declared winners for the various contests openly.

Third, Governor Hyacinth Alia publicly presented INEC nomination forms to seven of the fourteen APC National Assembly candidates in Benue State, including Hon. Regina Akume. In announcing the presentation, the Governor stated that he had “commenced” giving out nomination forms to the party’s candidates, expressing confidence that “by God’s grace it shall definitely end in praise.” That public action strongly suggests that, at least at that stage, those individuals were being processed as the party’s nominees.

Everything beyond these verifiable facts—including claims that certain winners have been “substituted” or that Governor Alia himself will somehow be replaced by someone who neither purchased nomination forms nor participated in the governorship primary—must presently be treated as allegations or rumours unless and until officially confirmed by either the APC or INEC.

Responsible citizenship demands that we distinguish verified information from speculation.

What Does the Law Require?

The Electoral Act establishes a clear distinction between conducting party primaries and submitting the names of nominated candidates to INEC.

A political party enjoys considerable internal discretion in organising its primaries. However, once it chooses the democratic route of conducting primaries, in accordance to the prevailing Electoral Act, that discretion is no longer absolute.

The law requires that candidates emerge through valid party primaries. INEC’s role at the primary stage is principally observational, while the courts remain the ultimate arbiters where disputes arise over compliance with the law.

Consequently, the National Working Committee (NWC) of a political party is not at liberty to disregard validly conducted primaries merely because it prefers another aspirant.

If an appeal mechanism exists under the party’s constitution or guidelines, it may be invoked. Likewise, where a primary is found to have been fundamentally defective, the party may act in accordance with its rules and the law. But such actions must rest upon legally sustainable grounds—not political convenience, personal loyalty, factional calculations, or external pressure.

What If the NWC Submits Different Names?

Should the APC NWC submit to INEC names different from those of persons who lawfully emerged from valid primaries without lawful justification, several consequences may follow.

First, the aggrieved aspirants would ordinarily have the right to approach the courts seeking declarations that they were the lawful winners of the primaries.

Second, if the courts determine that the substitution violated the Electoral Act, the party constitution, or its own guidelines, they may order recognition of the lawful candidates or grant other appropriate reliefs permitted by law.

Third, such actions would inevitably damage public confidence in internal party democracy. Political parties cannot convincingly preach democracy nationally while undermining democratic procedures internally. And this becomes more hypocritical if it is the ruling party doing this under a president that is supposedly a Democrat.

Finally, arbitrary replacement of candidates would deepen factional divisions within the party and could adversely affect electoral fortunes, both at the national and local levels.

What About Replacing a Sitting Governor Who Won the Primaries?

The rumours suggesting that a sitting governor who overwhelmingly won a duly conducted governorship primary could simply be replaced by an individual who neither purchased nomination forms nor participated in the primary should be approached with extreme caution.

As a matter of democratic principle and the structure of Nigeria’s electoral framework, such an outcome would raise extraordinarily serious legal questions. Unless anchored on lawful grounds recognised by the Constitution, the Electoral Act, party rules, or competent judicial decisions, such a purported replacement would almost certainly invite immediate litigation and intense judicial scrutiny.

In a constitutional democracy, nominations are governed by law—not by rumours, wishful thinking, or political propaganda.

The Greater Danger: Normalising Lawlessness

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this episode is not the rumours themselves but the enthusiastic reception they sometimes receive.

Whenever citizens celebrate the possibility that laws might be ignored simply because the outcome favours their preferred political camp, they weaken the very foundations upon which their own rights depend.

The rule of law cannot be divisible.

A society cannot demand strict compliance from its political opponents while applauding violations committed by its allies.

One cannot denounce executive lawlessness yet endorse party lawlessness.

One cannot complain about abuse of public office while simultaneously encouraging abuse of party procedures.

One cannot complain about insecurity in their communities arising from usurpation of ancestral lands by violent invaders while at the same time applauding usurpation of the electoral victories of the supposedly less connected by those who think they are connected to formidable national authorities.

Selective compliance is not compliance. It is merely organised hypocrisy.

About two years ago, I was approached to contest the election for the position of Dean of the Faculty of Science at my University. When faculty members gathered to cast the votes to choose between myself and another professor, some professors argued that there was no need to do so simply because they had endorsed me. After listening quietly to the arguments, I stood up and said, “I will not accept the position of Dean even if you tie it to my neck. Let the faculty vote.” With that, votes were cast in a secret balloting system, and not a single vote went against me. I got 100 per cent of votes cast and also 100 per cent assurance that my colleagues willingly gave me their mandate.

What honor, respect, or grace can a politician claim if they accept a stolen nomination even if imposed by the national leadership of their party?

A Word to the Electorate

Democracy imposes responsibilities upon citizens as well as obligations upon public officials.

An electorate that openly applauds illegality because it advances immediate partisan interests gradually forfeits its moral authority to condemn future abuses of power. Those who cheer arbitrary conduct today should not be surprised when tomorrow’s arbitrariness is directed against them.

This does not mean citizens lose their constitutional rights. Every Nigerian retains the legal right to demand accountability from government. But public credibility is diminished when citizens defend illegality in one context while condemning it in another.

History consistently teaches that the erosion of constitutional order rarely begins with dramatic events. It usually begins with society excusing “small” violations because they appear politically convenient. Eventually, exceptions become habits, habits become norms, and norms become institutionalised lawlessness.

Human decency requires boundaries. Constitutional democracy requires rules. Political competition requires fairness. The rule of law requires consistency.

If Nigerians genuinely desire accountable government, secure property rights, predictable institutions, and credible elections, then fidelity to the law must not depend upon whose interests are served.

The defence of legality is meaningful only when it protects both friends and opponents alike. That is the essence of constitutional democracy and the only durable foundation for justice, peace, and good governance.