As the 2027 election cycle draws closer, many National Assembly members are facing a political problem partly created by consequences in the Electoral Act 2026 that they helped pass.
The Electoral Act 2026 removed indirect primaries as a mode of candidate nomination, leaving political parties with two options, i.e., direct primaries or consensus. At the time, the change was presented as a reform to reduce delegate inducement and make aspirants answer directly to party members, which is an argument with merit. But the reform has now created a problem for incumbents.
That problem has become clearer after the recent House of Representatives primaries across different states, where some sitting lawmakers lost return tickets despite incumbency and established party networks.
No Automatic Tickets
Direct primaries require aspirants to reach a broad party membership base. Consensus, in practice, often strengthens the hand of party leaders and state governors who control political structures. For lawmakers seeking return tickets, both options can be risky.
That risk became clearer after President Bola Tinubu reportedly rejected lobbying by All Progressives Congress (APC) lawmakers for automatic return tickets, instead reaffirming the influence of governors and party structures in candidate selection. For lawmakers who assumed loyalty to the presidency would protect them, the message was blunt: incumbency is not enough.
The recent primaries have now reinforced that message. Some lawmakers who expected negotiated returns instead lost tickets either through direct voting by party members or internal arrangements they could not influence.
Consensus, or Imposition?
The consensus option is especially sensitive. Section 87 of the Electoral Act requires cleared aspirants to voluntarily withdraw and endorse one candidate in writing. Where that agreement fails, the party is expected to proceed to direct primaries. In politics, however, consensus can easily become a vehicle for imposition, especially where a governor or party leadership backs a preferred candidate.
There is also one phrase in the law that may become a serious flashpoint: “cleared aspirants.” “Cleared aspirants” may sound like a technical phrase, but it could decide political futures. If party leaders control who gets cleared, they may also control whose consent is needed for consensus. For some lawmakers, the real fight may not begin at the primary. It may begin earlier, in the screening room.
The Unity List Problem
Closely connected to this is what has become known in APC circles as the “unity list” — an arrangement where party leaders identify preferred candidates and expect other aspirants to step aside. The stated aim may be to avoid divisive primaries and present a coordinated slate. But in practice, it can turn consensus into a top-down selection process.
That tension has become more visible in the aftermath of the recent primaries, particularly in constituencies where sitting lawmakers lost tickets despite expectations that party structures would protect them.
This is where the irony becomes difficult to miss. Many lawmakers supported a legal framework that reduced the nomination routes available to parties. Now, some of them are discovering that the same framework gives them fewer options when party leaders or governors decide against them.
Fewer Escape Routes
One possible escape from an unfavourable party process is defection, which is to leave the party, seek a ticket elsewhere, and test one’s popularity on another platform. But that option is also becoming politically narrower. Opposition parties are dealing with their own internal crises, and sudden movement across party lines does not always guarantee a viable ticket. In a compressed election timetable, a lawmaker who loses favour in one party may find that alternative platforms are already controlled, contested or unstable.
For some lawmakers who lost tickets in the recent primaries, those limitations are now immediate political realities.
There is also a pending legal signal worth noting, though it is not yet law. In March, the House of Representatives passed an amendment bill seeking to criminalise dual party membership, with proposed penalties including a ₦10 million fine or a maximum two-year jail term. The Senate has not concurred, so the proposal is not currently in force and has no direct effect on the present nomination struggles. Still, politically, it reflects a wider attempt to close the space for politicians who keep one foot in one party while negotiating with another.
The Real Lesson
The issue is not whether direct primaries or consensus are inherently bad. Direct primaries broaden participation and consensus can reduce conflict where it is genuinely voluntary. The problem is that both can be manipulated when internal party democracy is weak.
For citizens, this moment is revealing. Lawmakers who often pass laws with little visible concern for how they may be used are now confronting the consequences inside their own parties. The struggle over return tickets is not just an APC problem or a National Assembly problem. It is a reminder that electoral rules matter long before election day.
For many NASS members, the nomination rules they helped write are no longer lines in an Act. They are now the roadblocks preventing them from returning to the National Assembly.