Arẹmọ Sehinde Ilẹgbusi
The controversy surrounding the APC National Assembly primary elections in Ondo State raises a fundamental legal question that has not received sufficient attention: When does an aspirant become the validly nominated candidate of a political party? Is it immediately upon the declaration of results at the primary election venue, or only after the political party has completed its internal processes by considering petitions, determining appeals, and formally certifying its candidates through its National Working Committee (NWC)?
The answer to this question lies at the heart of the pending legal challenges.
It is important to appreciate that the election committees constituted to conduct party primaries are not independent constitutional bodies. They are committees established by, and acting on behalf of, the National Working Committee. Like every agent acting for a principal, they conduct the exercise and make returns to the authority that appointed them. Those returns are then subject to scrutiny, certification, and, where necessary, review in accordance with the party’s constitution and primary election guidelines.
This explains why the APC established an Appeal Committee and required the submission of reports and petitions to the National Working Committee after the conduct of the primaries. These mechanisms were not created as ceremonial exercises. Their purpose is to enable the party to investigate complaints, examine allegations of irregularities, evaluate the reports of its election committees, and determine whether the process substantially complied with its constitution and guidelines before the party reached a final decision on its nominees.
If the declaration made at the polling venue were regarded as irrevocably final, several important questions arise. What then becomes the purpose of the Appeal Committee? Why should election committees submit their returns to the National Working Committee? Why invite petitions from aggrieved aspirants if the outcome is already beyond review? An appeal mechanism without the possibility of meaningful review would be reduced to a mere ritual, contrary to the very purpose for which it was established.
This issue becomes even more compelling when credible allegations of irregularities, manipulation, intimidation, or departures from the party’s guidelines are brought before the National Working Committee. If the party, after considering reports from its committees and petitions from stakeholders, is satisfied that the process was fundamentally compromised, must it nevertheless accept the field declaration as immutable simply because it was announced at the venue? Such an interpretation would effectively strip the political party of its constitutional authority to regulate its internal affairs, supervise the conduct of its agents, and ensure that its candidates emerge through a process consistent with its own rules.
Reports indicate that the APC received hundreds of petitions from across the country following its National Assembly primaries, including serious complaints from Ondo State. It has also been reported that some members of the election committee submitted reports raising concerns about the conduct of the exercise. Whether those allegations are ultimately established is a matter of evidence, but their existence underscores why the party’s internal review mechanism was activated before the final list of candidates was released.
It is therefore not surprising that the National Working Committee considered the report of its Appeal Committee before publishing the party’s final list of candidates. That process reflects the supervisory responsibility entrusted to the NWC under the party’s internal framework. The critical legal question is not whether substitutions occurred, but whether they were carried out in accordance with the APC Constitution, its Primary Election Guidelines, and the Electoral Act.
Some aggrieved aspirants now rely heavily on the presence of INEC officials at the primary elections and on reports allegedly prepared by those officials to contend that they became the authentic candidates immediately their names were announced at the venue. That argument, however, overlooks the constitutional distinction between INEC’s role and that of a political party.
INEC’s responsibility during party primaries is essentially supervisory and observational. The Commission monitors compliance with the Electoral Act and prepares reports of what transpired. It does not conduct party primaries, certify winners, or nominate candidates on behalf of political parties. The Constitution and the Electoral Act reserve the power to nominate and sponsor candidates exclusively to political parties acting through their duly constituted organs.
Accordingly, while an INEC report may constitute relevant evidence of what occurred during a primary election, it does not determine who ultimately becomes the party’s candidate. That responsibility remains with the political party, exercised in accordance with its constitution and guidelines.
Similarly, the fact that the names eventually submitted by the APC were successfully uploaded to INEC’s nomination portal does not, by itself, determine the legality of the nomination process. The portal serves an administrative function. It neither validates an unlawful nomination nor invalidates one made in accordance with the law. The decisive issue remains whether the party exercised its powers lawfully and in compliance with its own rules.
Against this background, it is difficult to sustain the proposition that an aspirant becomes the party’s duly nominated candidate immediately upon a declaration made at the primary election venue. Such a declaration represents an important stage in the nomination process, but where the party’s constitution and guidelines provide for appeals, internal review, and final certification by the National Working Committee, the process cannot reasonably be regarded as complete until those procedures have been concluded.
Consequently, aspirants challenging the decision of the National Working Committee are entitled to approach the courts, and the courts will ultimately determine whether the NWC acted within the powers conferred upon it by the APC Constitution, the Primary Election Guidelines, and the Electoral Act. However, the central issue before the court is not simply whether their names were announced at the venue of the primary election. Rather, the question is whether, after the completion of the party’s entire nomination process—including the consideration of petitions, appeals, and the exercise of the NWC’s supervisory authority—they were lawfully entitled to be recognised as the APC’s nominated candidates.
Ultimately, the integrity of political party primaries depends not merely on declarations made in the field but on the faithful observance of the entire process established by the party’s constitution and guidelines. If those internal mechanisms are to have any practical meaning, they must be capable of correcting proven irregularities before the party finally certifies and sponsors its candidates. Otherwise, the appeal process, the supervisory powers of the National Working Committee, and the requirement for post-primary review would become empty formalities, undermining both the party’s autonomy and the rule of law governing its internal democratic processes.
