Follow Us on Google
From Juliana Taiwo-Obaloye, Abuja
At the 21st Annual Nigerian Association of Government and Election (ANGE) forum, Professor Awa Kalu delivered a detailed critique of Nigeria’s persistent challenges in intra-party democracy, warning that these internal party weaknesses undermine the overall integrity and trustworthiness of Nigeria’s electoral process as the nation gears up for the 2027 general elections.
Kalu argued that the failure of political parties to conduct transparent, fair, and democratic primaries creates a ripple effect that distorts public confidence in election outcomes. “We need to eschew those practices that drive us to organise primaries within a political party from which a candidate emerges having satisfied the conditions stipulated by the party only for a sharp turnaround which produces another candidate for the election,” he stated emphatically.
He condemned the common practice of arbitrary candidate substitution, calling it “patently untrue and certainly unverifiable,” citing judicial rulings that have condemned such acts as undermining democratic integrity.
He quoted Justice Oguntade from a landmark Supreme Court case to reinforce his point, emphasising that political parties must adhere strictly to their constitutions concerning candidate nominations: “If a political party was not to be bound by the provisions of its Constitution concerning party primaries, why would there be the need to send members of the parties aspiring to be candidates on a wild goose chase upon which they dissipate their resources and waste time?” Kalu insisted that intra-party democracy is foundational, stating, “The failure of the parties to ensure intra-party democracy and live by the provisions of their Constitution as to the emergence of candidates for elections is one of the major causes of the serious problems hindering the enthronement of a representative government in the country.”
Other News
Beyond intra-party democracy, Kalu placed Nigeria’s electoral journey in historical context, describing the evolution of electoral laws and institutions since colonial times and how legal precedents have shaped the electoral dispute resolution framework. He noted the judicial principle of “substantial compliance,” where courts uphold elections even with procedural defects so long as outcomes are not materially affected, but warned that this philosophy can sometimes lead to judicial leniency that “boggles the minds of Nigerians” and erodes electoral justice.
He also highlighted the role of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in safeguarding electoral integrity, observing that “INEC must see itself not as a bureaucratic organ of state, but as the custodian of the juridical legitimacy of the Republic.” He praised innovations like biometric verification introduced since 2011 but insisted that technological advances alone cannot restore trust without accompanying institutional transparency and judicial vigilance.
In reflecting on the lessons from Nigeria’s electoral history, Kalu noted, “Electoral credibility requires that citizens perceive outcomes as fair, transparent, and consistent with democratic norms.” He painted a stark picture of the consequences when internal party democracy fails and legal frameworks are subverted. “Political parties’ internal conduct,” he said, “is the starting point for public expectations of electoral fairness. When parties rig their own primaries or impose candidates, the entire process loses its legitimacy.”
Kalu concluded with a cautionary reminder as Nigeria prepares for 2027: “The law must not only prescribe electoral procedures but must animate them with integrity, transparency, and justice.” He urged political parties to internalise democratic principles rigorously and for the judiciary to continue enforcing compliance, warning that “without credible internal democracy, the electoral process is at risk of becoming a charade, further deepening the trust deficit among Nigerians.”
