A quiet but growing anxiety is rippling through Nigeria’s governors’ camp after the passage of the Electoral Act 2026, which effectively outlawed indirect (delegate) primaries and left parties with only two legal nomination routes: direct primaries or consensus. With INEC’s revised timetable setting party primaries — and the window to settle disputes — between April 23 and May 30, 2026, many governors see their traditional levers of influence eroding and are scrambling to protect their political futures.
“Governors are unsettled,” political sources close to several statehouses told Sunday Sun. For second-term governors in particular — many of whom plan to seek Senate seats in 2027 — the removal of indirect primaries threatens the easiest path for managing succession and guaranteeing allies a place on the ballot. The delegate system, they say, let governors control outcomes through a small, manageable group. Direct primaries move decision-making to millions of card‑carrying party members, a shift governors fear will dilute their clout.
Logistics, cost and security: the practical fears
Beyond the political implications, governors and party leaders raise practical objections. Direct primaries require polling units in every ward, thousands of ad‑hoc staff, robust security and a validated membership register. Governors — who traditionally underwrite party operations at the state level — warn the expense is prohibitive and could spark violence if large turnouts go unpaid or poorly managed.
“Direct primaries are essentially mini-general elections,” one state official said. “Setting up voting across hundreds of wards, hiring staff, providing security — who pays for all that? It will bankrupt state chapters.”
Those fears are compounded by concerns over the 30‑day deadline to submit certified registers to INEC. Some governors are reportedly exploring court challenges, arguing the timeframe is administratively infeasible for states with millions of members and hoping to secure an injunction or a one‑time exception that would permit indirect primaries for 2026/2027.
Where direct primaries are feared, governors are shifting tactics. Several are running mass membership and revalidation drives at the state level to influence who gets party cards — effectively curating the electorate for a direct primary. “If you can ensure only your loyalists are registered as party members, a direct primary becomes just as predictable as an indirect one,” a party insider observed.
But that strategy carries risks. Critics warn it opens the door to register padding and cross‑party manipulation. Tunji Shelle, a chieftain of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and former Lagos PDP chairman, accused the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) of engineering the change to benefit parties with deeper resources and organised structures.
“They know that throwing everyone into a direct primary will be in their favour because they can afford to pay delegates at all levels,” Shelle said, alleging that operatives could register in other parties to vote for weak candidates and destabilise opposition ranks.
APC rebuttal and rival perspectives
The Lagos APC dismissed such allegations. Seye Oladejo, spokesperson for the party’s state chapter, urged opposition parties to focus on their own organisation instead of blaming the APC. “Primaries are internal affairs… It is a lazy man who accuses his neighbour of being responsible for the crisis in his own house,” he said, arguing the APC is preparing for its own processes.
Some lawmakers see the reform as corrective. Senator Gbenga Obadara argued direct primaries could curb the excesses of godfatherism by returning power to grassroots members. He said the mandatory submission of updated registers is intended to prevent opportunistic party-hopping by aspirants.
Legal safeguards and the limits of consensus
The Electoral Act’s designers have placed checks on forced consensus. For a consensus candidate to stand, every aspirant must sign a written withdrawal; even then, parties must ratify the selection via a special convention. If a single aspirant refuses to withdraw in writing, the party must proceed to a direct primary. That provision gives underdog aspirants legal protection against pressure from party bosses, underscoring why governors’ efforts to secure outcomes are becoming more complex.
Yet several political operatives predict many parties will still pursue consensus where possible to avoid the logistical burden of direct primaries — a prospect Chief Chekwas Okorie warns could open the door to compromised processes absent rigorous INEC oversight. “Only the sincerity of INEC will determine whether a party has met the requirements,” Okorie said, noting that many parties lack digitised, verifiable membership databases.
A high‑stakes trade: succession for protection
Inside statehouses, a pragmatic calculus is playing out. Some governors are reportedly willing to allow more open contests for their state’s governorship if they can secure protected or consensus arrangements for their own Senate bids. The scramble reflects the dual priorities of preserving influence and ensuring a smooth transition when they vacate the governor’s office.
What happens next
With INEC’s timetable looming and legal terrain still being tested, the coming weeks are likely to see increased court filings, membership drives, emergency stakeholder meetings and intensified horse‑trading between governors, party leadership and the presidency. Whether direct primaries will deliver the grassroots empowerment proponents promise — or simply become another front in intra‑party manipulation — will depend on how effectively INEC enforces register validation, how quickly courts rule on procedural challenges, and how much governors can adapt their influence to a broader electorate.
For now, the governors’ camp is hedging its bets: litigate where feasible, pad the register where possible, and press for consensus where it serves their interests — all driven by a single, overriding fear: that the new law will strip away the political leverage they have long wielded.
