Rumours, Ignorance Of The Law, And The Danger Of Trivializing Democracy -By Leonard Karshima Shilgba

A troubling feature of our political culture is the ease with which many citizens circulate rumours without first asking a simple question: What does the law say?

Recently, rumours have circulated suggesting that the APC may be “considering replacing” some candidates who emerged from its direct primaries. Such rumours reveal either a misunderstanding of the Electoral Act 2026 or an unfortunate willingness to assume that political power can override the law, which is irresponsibility in the office of Citizens.

The issue is not whether some powerful interests may desire to substitute candidates. The issue is whether the Electoral Act (2026) permits such substitution.

The answer is found not in speculation, wishful thinking, or political gossip, but in the law itself.

What the Electoral Act 2026 Says:

The Electoral Act 2026 requires political parties seeking to nominate candidates for elective offices to do so through lawful primary processes supervised by INEC. Under the Act, candidates emerge through only two recognized pathways:

1. Direct Primaries; and

2. Consensus.

Under Direct Primaries, registered members of a political party vote directly for aspirants seeking nomination. The aspirant who secures the highest lawful votes emerges as the party’s candidate.

The significance of this provision cannot be overstated.

The Electoral Act 2026 deliberately abolished the old delegate-based nomination system and vested the power of candidate selection directly in the hands of registered party members. This reform was intended to deepen internal democracy and prevent the concentration of nomination powers in the hands of a privileged few. Therefore, whatever a party official (including a national party chairman or secretary) publicly says that misaligns with this requirement doesn’t deserve even the fleeting attention of enlightened Nigerians.

Consequently, once party members have spoken through duly conducted direct primaries, the discretion of party leaders ends. The nomination belongs to the electorate within the party, not to a handful of influential individuals.

The law further provides that political parties may not impose qualifications or disqualifications beyond those prescribed by the Constitution and the Electoral Act. Therefore, party leaders cannot simply invent reasons to discard a candidate who has lawfully emerged through the prescribed process.

Consensus Is Not Imposition

Some may suggest that political parties can subsequently manufacture a consensus arrangement to replace candidates who emerged from direct primaries.

The law does not permit such a maneuver.

The Electoral Act requires that for a consensus candidate to emerge, every cleared aspirant for the office must voluntarily agree to the arrangement and signify that agreement in writing. Where unanimous consent is absent, consensus fails.

Consensus, therefore, is not imposition.

Consensus is unanimity.

It is the collective voluntary agreement of aspirants, not the unilateral decision of party leaders.

The Crucial Question of Substitution

The most decisive provision on this matter is Section 33 of the Electoral Act, which provides that:

“A political party shall

not be allowed to

change or substitute

its candidate whose

name has been

submitted pursuant

to Section 29 of this

Act except in the

case of death or

withdrawal by the

candidate.”

The law therefore recognizes only two circumstances under which a nominated candidate may be substituted:

•Death; or

•Voluntary withdrawal by the candidate.

Nothing else.

Not dissatisfaction by party leaders.

Not pressure from political stakeholders.

Not lobbying by influential interests.

Not strategic calculations.

Not alleged political expediency.

Nothing else.

Furthermore, the Act requires that withdrawal must be personally made by the candidate through a written notice delivered to the political party. It cannot be manufactured by party officials or imposed by external interests.

Furthermore, even before the issue of withdrawal of a candidate arises, it is worth noting that no political party in Nigeria can submit to INEC any person as a candidate for an elective office who didn’t emerge through Direct Primaries supervised by INEC, or through Consensus as stipulated in the Electoral Act 2026.

Why the Rumours Make No Legal Sense

The legal architecture of the Electoral Act is straightforward:

Party Members–> Direct Primaries–>Winner Emerges–>Candidate Submitted to INEC.

The Act does not create the following pathway:

Party Members–> Direct Primaries–>Winner Emerges–>Party Leaders Review & Where They Dislike Outcome–>Candidate Replaced (without even re-conduct of direct primaries in areas of dispute).

That pathway simply does not exist in law.

Indeed, if political parties retained unfettered authority to replace winners of direct primaries whenever they were dissatisfied with the outcome, the entire rationale behind the Electoral Act 2026 would collapse.

The National Assembly could not have intended to abolish delegate-based nominations, transfer nomination authority to ordinary party members, and then allow party leaders to nullify the decisions of those same party members at will.

Such an interpretation would render the Direct Primaries provisions redundant and meaningless.

The law must be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to its purpose, not one that defeats it.

The Legal Consequences of Unlawful Substitution

The Electoral Act does not merely establish procedures; it also prescribes consequences for violations.

The Act provides that where a political party fails to comply with the statutory requirements governing candidate nomination, the improperly nominated candidate may be excluded from participation in the election (without doubt, opposing political parties will exploit this legal provision to render the political party that is in violation of the Electoral Act without lawful representation in the general elections).

Additionally, aspirants who participated in the primary process possess legal standing to challenge violations of the Electoral Act before the courts.

Accordingly, any attempt to substitute a candidate who lawfully emerged through direct primaries, outside the circumstances expressly permitted by law, would expose both the political party and the substituted candidate to legal challenge and judicial scrutiny.

The law does not protect political convenience.

It protects lawful process.

Why Nigerians Should Care

This issue extends far beyond the ruling APC, Benue State, other States, or any particular election.

The issue is whether laws matter.

For decades, candidate selection within political parties was often controlled by a relatively small number of political actors. The Electoral Act 2026 sought to change that reality by transferring substantial nomination power to ordinary registered party members.

Today, party members determine who appears on the ballot from which Nigerians must ultimately choose their leaders.

This reform represents one of the most significant democratizing features of the Electoral Act (and commendation must go to both President Tinubu and the current National Assembly).

To casually suggest that party leaders may simply discard primary election winners is to suggest that the legislature enacted a major democratic reform with presidential concurrence for no practical purpose.

Such thinking trivializes the law and weakens democratic institutions.

The Real Democratic Lesson

Democracy does not begin on election day.

It begins when political parties select candidates.

The Direct Primaries framework was designed to ensure that candidates emerge from the will of registered party members rather than from the preferences of a privileged elite.

Whether one personally likes or dislikes a particular primary winner is entirely beside the point.

The rule of law requires respect for lawful outcomes.

Citizens must therefore resist the temptation to amplify rumours that are plainly inconsistent with the Electoral Act. Every time we casually assume that powerful interests can disregard statutory requirements, we contribute to a culture that treats laws as optional.

The Nigerian electorate must never become an accomplice in diminishing the significance of legal reforms that were enacted to strengthen its voice.

The Electoral Act 2026 entrusted candidate selection to registered party members because democracy is not merely about voting on election day. It is also about ensuring that those who appear on the ballot emerge through lawful, transparent, and democratic processes.

Even when voters must choose between undesirable alternatives, the law insists that those alternatives must first emerge through procedures prescribed by law.

That principle is not a technicality.

It is democracy itself.