IPAC’s costly late awakening

Coming more than a month after President Bola Ahmed Tinubu assented to the Electoral Act 2026, the opposition now being mounted by the Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC) is as unfortunate as it is belated. While dissent is a legitimate part of democratic engagement, its timing in this instance raises troubling questions about responsibility, preparedness, and […]

Coming more than a month after President Bola Ahmed Tinubu assented to the Electoral Act 2026, the opposition now being mounted by the Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC) is as unfortunate as it is belated. While dissent is a legitimate part of democratic engagement, its timing in this instance raises troubling questions about responsibility, preparedness, and seriousness among Nigeria’s political parties.

At an interactive session last week with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), IPAC National Chairman, Yusuf Dantalle, outlined the council’s objections to key provisions of the new law. Chief among them is the mandatory adoption of direct primaries for candidate selection, which the parties argue should remain an internal affair. IPAC also faulted the requirement for parties to submit detailed membership registers, including members’ National Identification Numbers, within a stipulated timeframe, describing it as impractical and potentially exclusionary.

These concerns, on the surface, are not without merit. Questions around feasibility, inclusiveness, and institutional capacity deserve attention in any electoral framework. However, what undermines IPAC’s current posture is not so much the substance of its objections as the lateness of its intervention. Where was this collective voice when the bill was undergoing legislative scrutiny, including public hearings? Why did the council fail to mobilise resistance or propose amendments at a stage when such engagement would have been meaningful?

More importantly, attempting to reopen settled provisions at this stage risks unsettling the 2027 electoral process. With INEC already working within the framework of the new Act, late-stage agitation could introduce uncertainty, disrupt timelines, and ultimately erode public trust. Indeed, persistent rejection of key provisions by major political actors may create avoidable legitimacy questions around the elections themselves, an outcome Nigeria can ill afford.

This episode should, therefore, serve as a wake-up call for political parties. In our current political environment, which is characterised by allegations of creeping one-party dominance, opposition platforms cannot afford to be reactive or lethargic. Nigerians would understandably be disappointed that a body like IPAC, expected to aggregate and articulate the concerns of parties, found its voice only after the critical decisions had been made.

That said, the council’s objections also warrant scrutiny. Its resistance to direct primaries, in particular, is unconvincing. While it is true, as political scientists often note, that the debate over primary systems is a double-edged sword, as both direct and indirect models have their strengths and weaknesses, the push for direct primaries did not emerge in a vacuum. It was largely a response to the well-documented abuses of the indirect system, where a handful of delegates, often susceptible to inducement, determine outcomes.

Direct primaries, though not without logistical challenges, hold the promise of broader participation and greater internal democracy. By opening up the process to a wider membership base, they reduce the stranglehold of moneybags and give grassroots party members a stronger voice.

For these reasons, Daily Trust supports the retention of direct primaries as a means of deepening democratic practice within parties. IPAC’s alarm, therefore, appears less like a principled stand and more like resistance to necessary reform.

On the question of cost, political parties must confront the realities of their own capacities. There is no provision in the law compelling every party to contest every election at all levels. Rather than stretching limited resources thin in pursuit of unrealistic ambitions, parties would do better to consolidate their strengths, focus on areas of comparative advantage, and build credibility incrementally. The presidency need not be the singular objective of every political platform, especially those without nationwide structures.

Perhaps the more compelling aspect of IPAC’s complaint relates to the submission of digital membership registers within tight deadlines. Here, there is some justification for concern, particularly given infrastructural limitations and disparities in access to registration facilities. However, INEC’s decision to extend the deadline from April 21 to May 10 demonstrates a willingness to accommodate genuine difficulties. The appropriate response from political parties now is not continued agitation but diligent compliance.

At this point, what is required is less noise and more constructive engagement. If IPAC believes certain provisions of the Act are fundamentally flawed, the proper avenue lies in seeking judicial interpretation. Even then, such steps must be taken with utmost responsibility. The country has had painful experiences with conflicting court orders and electoral uncertainty. Nigeria cannot afford a repeat.

The Electoral Act 2026 may not be perfect, but its imperfections should have been confronted at the appropriate time.

For now, the priority must be to ensure a stable, credible, and orderly path to 2027. Anything that threatens to derail that process, however well-intentioned, should be approached with caution. IPAC’s late awakening is a lesson in missed opportunity; it should also be a turning point towards greater vigilance, responsibility, and timely engagement in the future.