The forthcoming national convention of the All Progressives Congress is, on paper, an administrative ritual. In practice, it is something closer to a controlled experiment in elite management; part theatre, part negotiation, and part quiet coronation. What emerges from it will say less about the ruling party’s constitution than about its true constitution: the distribution of power between the presidency, the governors and the party’s increasingly restless rank and file. Three forces will determine the outcome: zoning, presidential preference and gubernatorial muscle. Each is familiar; together they form a triad that has long governed Nigerian party politics. What is new is the intensity with which they now collide.
Zoning: the fiction that sustains order
Zoning, the informal rotation of offices across Nigeria’s regions, remains the APC’s preferred instrument for managing diversity. It is less a principle than a political sedative: a way to distribute offices without addressing deeper grievances. In theory, it promotes balance. In practice, it narrows competition and converts merit into geography. At this convention, zoning is both indispensable and insufficient. It prevents outright regional exclusion, but it does not settle intra-zonal rivalries. The fiercest contests are not between North and South, but within them; between states, factions and, increasingly, between old party loyalists and new defectors. The disputes in Delta, Enugu, Zamfara and Adamawa are not aberrations; they are the logical consequence of a system that allocates positions broadly but leaves the finer spoils to be fought over. The result is a paradox: zoning reduces the risk of fragmentation at the macro level while intensifying conflict at the micro level. It keeps the party together, but only just.
The president’s shadow
Hovering above these disputes is President Bola Tinubu, whose “body language” - that uniquely Nigerian euphemism for political instruction, has already tilted the field. His reported backing of Nentawe Yilwatda is not merely an endorsement; it is a signal to the party’s ecosystem that continuity is preferred to disruption. In a system where formal votes often ratify informal decisions, such signals matter enormously. They shape alliances, discourage challengers and lubricate the path to “consensus” - a word that in Nigerian politics frequently denotes the absence of genuine contestation. Tinubu’s interest is clear. As the party’s paramount figure and a likely central actor in the 2027 elections, he requires a compliant and coordinated National Working Committee (NWC). A fractious or independent-minded leadership would complicate candidate selection, dispute resolution and the broader management of the party’s electoral machinery. Stability, in this sense, is not merely desirable; it is strategic.
The governors’ quiet coup
Yet if the president casts the longest shadow, the governors control the ground beneath it. Nigeria’s state governors have, over time, become the de facto custodians of party machinery. They command resources, dominate state structures and, crucially, influence the selection of delegates long before any convention begins. In the APC, this has produced a dual power structure: the presidency sets direction, while governors determine execution.
The growing influence of defectors; governors who joined the party from rival platforms, has further complicated matters. They arrive not as supplicants but as power brokers, seeking to secure NWC positions for their allies and, in doing so, reshape the party’s internal balance. This has triggered predictable resentment. Founding members; figures who built the party’s early structures, now find themselves competing with newcomers who possess greater immediate leverage. The clashes in states like Zamfara, where figures such as Abdulaziz Yari and Bello Matawalle represent rival centers of gravity, illustrate a broader truth: the APC is no longer a coalition of equals but a hierarchy in flux.
Continuity versus recalibration
Beneath these maneuvers lies a more philosophical question: should the party prioritize continuity or renewal? The argument for continuity, advanced by those backing the current leadership, is straightforward. With elections approaching, stability reduces uncertainty and allows for strategic planning. The case for renewal is less about principle than about adaptation. Nigeria’s political landscape is shifting; voter expectations are evolving; and the APC’s own internal contradictions are becoming harder to manage. A convention that merely reproduces existing hierarchies risks postponing, rather than resolving, these tensions. Yet renewal faces a structural disadvantage. It requires disruption, and disruption is precisely what the dominant actors; the presidency and the governors have little incentive to permit.
The illusion of internal democracy
The APC convention will, as always, be framed as a democratic exercise. Delegates will vote; positions will be filled; communiqués will be issued. But the real decisions will have been made elsewhere—in private meetings, in state capitals, and in the quiet alignments that precede any formal gathering.
This is not unique to the APC, nor even to Nigeria. But it does raise questions about the party’s ability to present itself as a model of internal democracy. Allegations that aspirants have been denied access to nomination forms or edged out by pre-arranged agreements reinforce the perception that the process is less open than advertised. For a ruling party, this matters. Internal legitimacy is not merely a moral concern; it is a practical one. A party that cannot manage its own contradictions risks exporting them into the electoral arena.
Who will win—and why
In such a landscape, the outcome is unlikely to be revolutionary. The most probable victor is not a faction but a coalition: the alignment between the presidency and the governors. Their interests, while not identical, are sufficiently convergent to produce a shared outcome; an NWC that reflects continuity, accommodates key regional demands, and incorporates enough new entrants to maintain broad support. Tinubu’s preferred candidates, particularly for the chairmanship, are likely to prevail, not because opposition is absent but because it is fragmented and structurally disadvantaged. Governors will secure placements for their loyalists, ensuring that the NWC remains responsive to their interests. Founding members will retain a presence, but a diminished one; symbolically important, politically secondary. In short, the convention will produce a carefully calibrated balance: continuity at the top, accommodation at the margins, and managed discontent beneath.
The risks ahead
Such an outcome may preserve short-term unity, but it carries longer-term risks. By privileging elite consensus over open competition, the party reinforces a model in which power is negotiated rather than contested. This can sustain cohesion, but it can also entrench complacency. As Nigeria approaches the 2027 elections, the APC will need more than internal harmony; it will need credibility with voters. A convention perceived as exclusionary or predetermined may not fracture the party immediately, but it could erode the enthusiasm of its base and deepen latent divisions.
A test passed—or postponed
The 2026 convention will almost certainly avoid open rupture. The APC has, after all, become adept at managing its internal contradictions. But whether it resolves them is another matter entirely. In that sense, the convention is less a test of internal democracy than a test of internal discipline. It will show that the party can still choreograph unity among competing elites. What it will not show; at least not yet, is whether it can evolve beyond that choreography. For now, the likely verdict is clear: the establishment will prevail, the machinery will endure, and the question of genuine internal reform will be deferred to another day.
 |
|
