By Usman Abdulkadir Taleeki
In my column this week, I examine one of the most debated provisions embedded in the newly assented Electoral Act and interrogate whether it truly offers a lasting solution or merely replaces one set of problems with another that we may soon be forced to confront.
Nigeria’s democratic evolution has always been shaped by bold reforms, contested ideas, and unintended consequences. Each attempt to correct past distortions often arrives with its own complications, raising a fundamental question that confronts every reformist effort: are we genuinely solving problems, or merely exchanging old challenges for new and potentially more dangerous ones? This question sits at the heart of the renewed debate surrounding direct primary elections, a major feature of the recently enacted Electoral Act 2025. While the Act has been received with mixed reactions across the country, few provisions have generated as much optimism, controversy, and quiet anxiety as the restructuring of how political parties nominate their candidates. In this column, I examine whether the institutionalization of direct primaries truly represents democratic progress, or whether it is another well-intentioned policy whose implementation risks overwhelming Nigeria’s fragile political, security, and institutional systems.
The Electoral Act 2025 was signed into law by the President of Nigeria despite intense national debate, particularly over the question of electronic transmission of election results. That specific provision attracted widespread criticism, protests, and condemnation from civil society groups and opposition figures who saw it as a retreat from transparency and electoral credibility. Yet, beyond those controversies, one provision has enjoyed unusual popularity among large segments of the public: the restructuring of party primaries. Under the new law, political parties are now restricted to only two methods of candidate selection. These are consensus among aspirants or direct primary elections, where all registered members of a political party are entitled to participate in choosing its flag bearer. This reform effectively abolishes the indirect primary system, commonly referred to as the delegate method, which has dominated Nigeria’s political landscape for decades.
At first glance, the public enthusiasm is understandable. Indirect primaries became synonymous with corruption, exclusion, and elite manipulation. Delegates were routinely induced with money, promises, and intimidation. In many cases, party tickets were not earned through ideas, vision, or popularity, but purchased through financial power. The process alienated grassroots party members and fostered deep resentment within party structures. Against this background, direct primaries appear to offer a democratic rebirth. They promise inclusion, broader participation, and the possibility of returning power to ordinary party members. In theory, they weaken godfatherism, dilute elite control, and create space for popular candidates to emerge.
However, democracy does not operate in theory alone. It functions within real political environments, shaped by institutions, resources, security conditions, and civic culture. It is at this point that optimism must give way to serious reflection. The critical question is not whether direct primaries are desirable in principle, but whether Nigeria, in its current condition, is capable of implementing them effectively without producing consequences more damaging than the problems they were designed to solve.
Conducting direct primaries on a national scale is an enormous logistical and institutional undertaking. It requires credible party membership registers, effective internal democracy within parties, disciplined security deployment, substantial financial resources, and a neutral electoral management environment. These are conditions that Nigeria continues to struggle with. Political parties in Nigeria are among the weakest institutions in the democratic chain. Many lack functional offices at ward levels. Membership registers are often outdated, unverifiable, or deliberately manipulated. Internal democracy is routinely subordinated to the interests of powerful individuals. Expecting such structures to suddenly administer transparent, nationwide primaries involving millions of participants is unrealistic.
The challenges are not hypothetical. Nigeria has encountered this debate before. During preparations for the 2023 general elections, an earlier amendment to the Electoral Act sought to impose direct primaries as the dominant method of candidate selection. That amendment came remarkably close to becoming law. However, at the final stage, the President referred the bill to the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation for legal and policy advice. What followed remains one of the most sober and reality-driven interventions in Nigeria’s recent electoral history.
The Attorney-General raised concerns that went beyond partisan politics and focused squarely on feasibility, constitutionality, cost, and security. His advice was not a rejection of democratic ideals, but a warning against legislating ambition without institutional capacity. One of the foremost concerns was cost. Nigeria has 8,809 political wards. Conducting direct primaries across all these wards for presidential, gubernatorial, senatorial, and House of Representatives contests would impose an extraordinary financial burden. Political parties would be required to mobilize personnel, materials, and logistics nationwide. At the same time, the Independent National Electoral Commission would be expected to monitor these primaries across every ward to ensure compliance with the law. When added to the already staggering cost of conducting general elections, this would place severe strain on public finances and party resources, particularly at a time when Nigeria continues to grapple with declining revenues, rising debt, and economic instability.
The indirect consequences of such financial pressure are deeply troubling. High costs inevitably encourage monetization. Aspirants would be pushed to raise enormous sums of money, often through illicit means. Vote-buying, bribery, and financial inducement would not disappear. Instead, they would be scaled up. Smaller political parties would be crowded out entirely, unable to compete with larger, wealthier parties. The result would be a weakened multiparty system and further consolidation of political power in the hands of a few.
Security concerns present an even more serious challenge. Nigeria is already overstretched by internal security crises, including banditry, insurgency, communal violence, and election-related unrest. Deploying security personnel to simultaneously secure thousands of primary election venues across the country would stretch the capacity of security agencies beyond reasonable limits. Large-scale participation without adequate coordination increases the likelihood of intimidation, clashes, violence, and disruption. Where security presence is thin, outcomes become vulnerable to manipulation. Where security presence is heavy, accusations of intimidation and bias emerge. Either way, the credibility of the process suffers.
There are also fundamental constitutional and democratic concerns. Political party membership is voluntary. Millions of Nigerians are not members of any political party, either by choice or circumstance. Democracy, at its core, is anchored in universal adult suffrage during general elections, not compulsory participation in internal party processes. Forcing political parties to adopt a single nomination method risks violating the constitutional right to freedom of association. Parties are voluntary organizations with the right to structure their internal affairs, subject to broad democratic principles. Imposing uniformity where diversity is constitutionally protected sets a dangerous precedent.
The Attorney-General also warned of inevitable legal consequences. Many political parties have constitutions that permit a combination of direct, indirect, and consensus primaries. Enforcing a single method would require widespread internal constitutional amendments. Such processes are complex, time-consuming, and legally contentious. Implementing them close to general elections could disrupt electoral timetables and trigger extensive litigation. Nigeria’s judiciary is already burdened with election-related cases. Institutionalizing a system that guarantees an explosion of pre-election disputes risks paralysing both the courts and the electoral process.
Perhaps most troubling is the issue of manipulation. Direct primaries assume the existence of credible membership registers and reliable identification mechanisms. In reality, most Nigerian political parties lack both. Membership cards are easily forged. Registers are poorly maintained. This opens the door for non-members to be mobilized by wealthy aspirants or even rival parties to influence outcomes. Under such conditions, direct primaries may not reflect the will of genuine party members, but the purchasing power and mobilization capacity of political actors. Ironically, a system designed to curb elite manipulation may end up expanding it.
The conclusion reached during the 2023 debate was therefore clear and compelling. Direct primaries, while attractive in theory, posed serious legal, financial, economic, and security risks in Nigeria’s context. Restricting parties to a single nomination method constituted undue interference in their internal affairs and undermined constitutional freedoms. Indirect primaries, though imperfect, remained internationally accepted democratic practices capable of producing credible outcomes when properly regulated.
The critical question today is whether anything has fundamentally changed since those conclusions were drawn. The honest answer is no. Nigeria’s security challenges remain severe. Political party structures remain weak. Electoral monetization has worsened, not improved. Institutional capacity has not undergone the transformation required to justify a radically expanded electoral process at the party level. Nigeria of then and Nigeria of now are not materially different. The risks identified in the past remain firmly embedded in our political reality.
This does not mean that the delegate system should be defended blindly. It means that reform must be realistic, gradual, and rooted in institutional strengthening rather than legislative compulsion. Democracy is not strengthened by imposing models that exceed a country’s administrative and security capacity. It is strengthened by building institutions, enforcing transparency, and cultivating political culture over time. Direct primaries may well represent Nigeria’s democratic future. But imposed prematurely, without the necessary foundations, they risk becoming another well-intentioned reform that deepens the very problems it sought to eliminate. In attempting to cure one disease, we must be careful not to inflict another that proves even harder to manage.
Abuja Network News
Tags
Opinion