The ruling All Progressives Congress is facing rising internal tension as its effort to adopt consensus arrangements for selecting candidates ahead of the 2027 general elections continues to meet strong resistance in several states, exposing deep divisions within the party and raising fresh concerns about unity, fairness, and internal democracy.
Party leadership had positioned the consensus strategy as a practical solution to avoid expensive and divisive primary elections, reduce court cases after nominations, and present a more united front going into the next electoral cycle. The idea was that in certain states, aspirants would agree on a single candidate through negotiation and political alignment rather than go through competitive voting processes that often leave lingering grievances...READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE .
However, implementation of this approach has proven far more complicated than anticipated. In many states, aspirants are refusing to step down in favour of preferred candidates, insisting that only a transparent and competitive primary election can legitimately produce party flag bearers. This has triggered friction between party structures at national level and influential stakeholders within state chapters who control local political machinery.
According to reports, while some states have successfully concluded consensus agreements with minimal resistance, others are experiencing open disagreement among key political actors. In these states, multiple aspirants are still actively campaigning, holding consultations, and mobilising supporters despite attempts by party leaders to streamline candidacies. The result has been a growing atmosphere of uncertainty and internal contestation that threatens to complicate the party’s timetable for primaries.
Several party insiders describe the situation as a delicate balancing act between maintaining unity and respecting internal democratic processes. Governors and senior party figures in some states are said to be driving consensus arrangements, often in a bid to consolidate political influence and avoid fragmentation within their structures. However, opponents of the process argue that such arrangements risk turning into imposed selections that sideline popular aspirants and undermine grassroots participation.
At the heart of the disagreement is a fundamental question about fairness and inclusion. Critics of the consensus model argue that it concentrates too much power in the hands of a few political leaders who may prioritise loyalty or personal relationships over broad-based support. They insist that direct primaries remain the most credible method for selecting candidates because they allow party members to vote freely and determine who represents them in elections.
On the other hand, supporters of consensus arrangements within the APC argue that competitive primaries often lead to bitter rivalries, post-election defections, and expensive legal battles that weaken the party’s overall performance in general elections. They maintain that when properly negotiated, consensus helps reduce tension, save resources, and strengthen party cohesion.
Despite these arguments, the reality on the ground suggests that consensus is far from universally accepted. In some states, aspirants have openly rejected withdrawal negotiations, insisting that they will only step down if defeated through formal voting. This has led to stalled discussions in certain areas, with party elders struggling to reconcile competing interests and prevent escalation into full internal crisis.
Political observers note that the current tension reflects deeper structural issues within the APC, where competing power blocs at national, state, and local levels are all seeking influence over candidate selection. In several cases, alliances are being shaped not only by ideology or party loyalty but also by calculations around future political control, succession plans, and access to resources.
The situation is further complicated by the approach of the primaries, which are expected to determine the party’s flag bearers across multiple levels of government. As the process draws closer, pressure is mounting on party leadership to either enforce consensus more strictly or expand the scope of direct primaries to accommodate resistance in states where agreements have failed.
Some analysts warn that if the disagreements are not carefully managed, the APC could face internal fractures that may affect its electoral strength going into 2027. They argue that unresolved grievances from the primary selection process often resurface during general elections, sometimes leading to voter apathy, protest voting, or even defections to opposition parties.
Despite these concerns, the party leadership has continued to emphasize unity as a top priority, insisting that consultations are ongoing to resolve disputes in affected states. There are indications that adjustments may still be made to allow a hybrid approach, where consensus is used in some areas while direct primaries are conducted in others depending on the level of agreement among stakeholders.
For now, the APC finds itself navigating a sensitive political moment where the need for internal cohesion is being tested by competing ambitions and differing interpretations of fairness. As negotiations continue across various states, the outcome of this internal struggle is expected to play a significant role in shaping not only the party’s candidates but also its overall preparedness for the 2027 general elections.
