APC faces backlash over controversial candidates’ list

The All Progressives Congress (APC) is currently facing significant legal and political challenges over alleged alterations to its National Assembly candidates’ list for the upcoming 2027 general elections. This development raises critical questions regarding internal party democracy, adherence to the Electoral Act, 2026, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) regulations. Legal professionals are keenly observing the unfolding events, as the controversy could lead to extensive pre-election litigation, potentially impacting the legitimacy of candidates and the integrity of the electoral process. The core legal issue revolves around the stringent conditions for candidate substitution under Nigerian electoral law, which largely restricts changes to instances of death or voluntary withdrawal, mandating fresh primaries in such cases.

Nigeria's political landscape is once again gripped by pre-election disputes, with the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) at the centre of a storm concerning its National Assembly candidates’ list for the 2027 general elections. Reports indicate that the party has allegedly altered the list, sparking widespread backlash and raising serious concerns about the sanctity of internal party democracy. This controversy is not merely an internal party affair; it has profound legal implications for the electoral process, the rights of aspirants, and the regulatory oversight functions of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The integrity of candidate nomination processes is a cornerstone of a credible electoral system. Any perceived manipulation or arbitrary alteration of candidate lists directly undermines public confidence and can lead to a deluge of pre-election litigation, as aggrieved aspirants seek redress. For legal practitioners, this situation presents a complex interplay of constitutional provisions, electoral statutes, and judicial precedents, demanding a thorough understanding of the limits of party autonomy versus the imperative of legal compliance. This article will delve into the legal framework governing candidate nomination and substitution in Nigeria, analysing the potential ramifications of the APC's actions and offering insights for legal professionals navigating such disputes.

The legal framework governing political parties and candidate nomination in Nigeria is primarily enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and the Electoral Act, 2026. These instruments, along with regulations issued by INEC, aim to foster internal party democracy and ensure transparency in the electoral process. Historically, Nigerian political parties have often been criticised for a lack of internal democracy, leading to arbitrary imposition of candidates and widespread discontent among party members.

To curb these excesses, the Electoral Act has evolved, progressively imposing stricter conditions on candidate nomination and substitution. Notably, Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 2022 (which principles are largely retained in the Electoral Act, 2026 for the 2027 elections) explicitly prohibits a political party from changing or substituting its candidate whose name has been submitted to INEC, except in cases of death or voluntary withdrawal by the candidate. Even in such limited circumstances, the Act mandates the political party to conduct a fresh primary election within 14 days to produce and submit a new candidate to the Commission. This provision marked a significant departure from previous electoral laws, which allowed substitution for 'cogent and verifiable reasons,' a loophole often exploited by parties. Furthermore, the Electoral Act, 2026, mandates that political parties nominate candidates through democratic primaries (direct or consensus), monitored by INEC, and non-compliance can lead to disqualification.

The APC's alleged alteration of its National Assembly candidates’ list directly challenges the stringent provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, particularly those concerning candidate substitution. The current legal regime, significantly tightened from previous iterations, leaves very little room for arbitrary changes to a list of candidates already submitted to INEC. The Supreme Court, in landmark cases such as *Ugwu v. Ararume* (2007) and *Amaechi v. INEC* (2008), even under the less restrictive Electoral Act, 2006, had already established the principle that political parties cannot arbitrarily substitute candidates who have emerged from valid primaries. While these cases were decided under an older Act, their underlying principle — that the mandate of a candidate validly nominated at a primary belongs to the candidate, not solely the party — remains highly persuasive and has been reinforced by subsequent electoral reforms.

The Electoral Act, 2026, through sections such as 33 (of the 2022 Act, which is largely consistent with the 2026 Act's intent) and 84-88, places the onus on political parties to conduct transparent and democratic primaries. INEC's role is to monitor these primaries and ensure compliance with the law and party guidelines. Where a party fails to comply with the law in conducting primaries, INEC is empowered not to include the party's candidate in the election. This was starkly demonstrated in *APC v. Marafa & Ors* (2019), where the Supreme Court nullified all votes cast for the APC in Zamfara State due to the party's failure to conduct valid primaries.

The APC's defence, citing internal appeal mechanisms and review of petitions from aggrieved aspirants, must be critically assessed against the express provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026. While internal party dispute resolution is encouraged, it cannot override statutory requirements. If the 'alterations' amount to substituting a validly nominated candidate without their death or voluntary withdrawal, and without conducting a fresh primary, such actions would be ultra vires the party's powers under the Electoral Act. Aggrieved aspirants have a clear path to seek redress at the Federal High Court, which has jurisdiction over pre-election matters. The courts have consistently held that parties must adhere to their own constitutions and the Electoral Act in candidate selection. The judiciary's stance has been to uphold internal party democracy and prevent arbitrary actions by party leadership, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process.

The APC's controversial candidates’ list presents a significant legal quandary that could have far-reaching implications for the 2027 general elections. For practising attorneys, this situation underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to the Electoral Act, 2026, and relevant INEC regulations by political parties. Any deviation from the prescribed procedures for candidate nomination and substitution, particularly the narrow exceptions outlined in Section 33 (or its equivalent) for death or voluntary withdrawal followed by fresh primaries, is likely to be challenged successfully in court.

Practitioners representing aggrieved aspirants should meticulously document all procedural irregularities during primaries and any subsequent attempts at unlawful substitution. The robust judicial precedents, coupled with the stringent provisions of the Electoral Act, provide strong grounds for challenging arbitrary party decisions. Conversely, legal advisers to political parties must ensure that all candidate selection processes, including any post-primary adjustments, are strictly compliant with the law to avoid costly litigation and potential disqualification of candidates. The judiciary is expected to continue its role as a bulwark against electoral impunity, reinforcing the principles of internal party democracy and the rule of law in Nigeria's electoral system.