‘Consensus’ or Imposition? Electoral Act Sets Clear Rules for Political Parties

The growing controversy surrounding the adoption of “consensus candidates” within Nigerian political parties has once again drawn attention to the provisions of the country’s electoral laws and the limits of internal party democracy.

Recent developments within the ruling All Progressives Congress have sparked debate over whether some aspirants are being unfairly pressured to step down in favour of preferred candidates under the guise of consensus arrangements.

Subtle resistance and political tensions have reportedly surfaced in states including Lagos State, Ogun State, Oyo State, and Gombe State, where allegations of imposed candidacies have generated discontent among party stakeholders.

A crucial question to ask at this point is: can a political party lawfully impose a consensus candidate without the written consent of all cleared aspirants?

The provisions of the Electoral Act appear unambiguous on the matter.

Under Section 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2022, political parties are permitted to nominate candidates for elective offices through only two methods, direct primaries or consensus.

The law states that “the procedure for the nomination of candidates by political parties for the various elective positions shall be by direct primaries or consensus.”

However, the conditions guiding the adoption of consensus candidacy are more stringent than many party leaders publicly acknowledge.

Section 87(1) of the Act specifically requires any political party opting for consensus to obtain the written consent of all cleared aspirants. Such consent must indicate that the aspirants have voluntarily withdrawn from the race and endorsed the consensus candidate.

The section states: “A political party that adopts a consensus candidate shall secure the written consent of all cleared aspirants for the position, indicating their voluntary withdrawal from the race and their endorsement of the consensus candidate.”

The law further provides consequences where unanimity cannot be achieved.

According to Section 87(2), if a party fails to secure the written consent of all aspirants, it must abandon the consensus arrangement and revert to direct primaries for the nomination process.

The legislation also mandates that a special convention or nomination congress be conducted to formally ratify any consensus candidate at designated national, state, senatorial, federal, or state constituency centres.

Legal analysts say these provisions were deliberately inserted to prevent powerful political interests from manipulating internal party processes or sidelining aspirants through coercion.

The Electoral Act equally seeks to stop political parties from abusing screening procedures to eliminate aspirants unfairly.

Section 85 of the Act prohibits parties from imposing arbitrary qualification or disqualification conditions outside those already recognised by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The constitutionally recognised criteria relate mainly to age, citizenship, educational qualifications, bankruptcy, criminal convictions, certificate forgery, and membership of secret cults.

In certain quarters, it’s being argued that despite the clarity of the law, consensus candidacy has increasingly become a politically sensitive mechanism often criticised as a tool for imposition rather than genuine agreement.

For many party members, the issue is no longer whether consensus is lawful, but whether it is truly voluntary in practice.

As political parties intensify preparations for future elections, the implementation of these provisions is likely to remain a major test of internal democracy and the credibility of Nigeria’s electoral process.