NDC primaries and the aftermath

By Kalu Okoronkwo

The emergence of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) as a political platform attracted diverse political tendencies and support groups. Among the most notable were supporters of Mr. Peter Obi, former Governor of Anambra State, and Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, former Governor of Kano State. Both politicians have demonstrated significant electoral appeal and grassroots support, making them influential figures in Nigeria’s political calculations.

Their arrival in the NDC injected fresh energy into the party and generated enthusiasm among supporters who viewed the alliance as a vehicle for political renewal and a credible challenge to the established political order.

However, politics is often as much about perception as it is about reality. In the aftermath of party primaries, emotions are running high, expectations colliding with outcomes, and disappointed aspirants are searching for explanations. In such moments, facts are frequently overshadowed by sentiments, and political actors become targets of accusations for events over which they have little or no control.

This appears to be the unfolding situation following the NDC primaries. What should ordinarily have been an internal party exercise to select candidates for various elective offices has, in some quarters, evolved into a blame game. Aspirants who failed to secure tickets have begun looking beyond the party’s established structures for explanations, with some directing their frustrations at Peter Obi, Kwankwaso, the Obidient Movement, and the Kwankwasiya Movement.

The controversy raises an important question: who should bear responsibility for the outcome of the NDC primaries?

The answer may not be politically convenient, but it is necessary if democratic institutions are to be strengthened rather than weakened.

Political excitement can sometimes create unrealistic expectations. For some aspirants, affiliation with either the Obidient Movement or the Kwankwasiya Movement appeared to foster the belief that party tickets to different elective positions would be automatic.  The assumption was simple: if Obi and Kwankwaso were the most popular figures within the alliance, then their followers should enjoy preferential treatment in the distribution of political opportunities.

Such a narrative may be politically appealing, but it ignores the realities of party administration and the principles that govern internal party democracy.

To understand the situation properly, it is important to begin with a simple fact:  Obi and Kwankwaso are relatively new entrants into the NDC. Alongside many of their supporters, they joined the party only recently. Before their arrival, there were loyal party members who had spent years building structures, sustaining party activities, and keeping the organisation alive through difficult periods.

These longstanding members can rightly claim to have made sacrifices for the party long before the arrival of Obi, Kwankwaso, the Obidients, and the Kwankwasiya Movement. They helped lay the foundation upon which the party stands today. Consequently, it would be historically inaccurate to portray Obi and Kwankwaso as controllers of a political structure they neither founded nor managed.

Political parties are institutions governed by constitutions, rules, and administrative organs. The authority to organise congresses, conduct primaries, resolve disputes, and determine party procedures rests with the party’s leadership structures, particularly the National Working Committee (NWC) and relevant state executive committees.

At present, neither Obi nor Kwankwaso controls the NWC of the NDC. They were not involved in the formation of the party, nor do they exercise administrative authority over its internal mechanisms. Their status within the party is that of aspirants and candidates, not party administrators. This reality makes it difficult to sustain arguments that seek to hold them responsible for the conduct or outcome of the primaries.

In every democratic system, there is a distinction between those seeking office and those managing the process through which candidates emerge. The umpire and the contestant are not the same. When that distinction becomes blurred, confusion and misplaced accusations inevitably follow.

Obi and Kwankwaso, like every other aspirant, are participants in the party’s democratic process. They were issued tickets to contest under the platform of the NDC. Beyond that, there is little evidence to suggest that they exercised authority over candidates’ selection in states and constituencies across the country.

One of the enduring principles of party politics is the doctrine of party supremacy. Courts, political analysts, and party constitutions have consistently affirmed that political parties retain significant authority over their internal affairs. While candidates may express opinions, offer advice, or appeal for the reconsideration of certain decisions, they are not expected to usurp the powers of party organs charged with managing internal processes.

If aggrieved aspirants believe irregularities occurred during the primaries, there are internal party organs they can go to seek redress such as the Appeals Committee of the National Working Committee. Investigations can be conducted, recommendations made, and corrective measures implemented where necessary.

It is important to note that some analysts and political observers risk misreading the current situation. The popularity of Obi and Kwankwaso has created large political following around them. The Obidient and Kwankwasiya movements have evolved into powerful political brands capable of influencing public discourse and mobilising supporters. However, political influence should not be mistaken for administrative authority.

The ability to inspire supporters is different from the power to conduct primaries. The capacity to attract votes is not the same as the authority to determine candidates’ lists. Enthusiasm among followers does not automatically translate into control of party structure.

Consequently, supporters who expected Obi or Kwankwaso to determine the outcome of the primaries may have misunderstood the limits of their roles within the party. Political movements can join a party, energise its membership, and contribute to its electoral prospects, but they do not automatically inherit control of its governance mechanisms. That process requires time, negotiation, consensus building, and adherence to party rules.

This episode offers an important lesson in electoral interpretation: not every political disappointment should be personalised, and not every unfavourable outcome should be attributed to a prominent political figure. Democracy functions best when institutions are allowed to perform their roles and when responsibilities are assigned appropriately.

Blaming Obi or Kwankwaso for decisions allegedly taken by party organs risks creating false narratives that neither resolve grievances nor strengthen internal party democracy. Such accusations may satisfy emotions, but they do little to advance justice, accountability, or institutional development.

Nigeria’s political space already suffers from an excessive tendency to personalise institutions. Too often, citizens interpret party decisions, government actions, and electoral outcomes through the lens of individuals rather than systems. The result is a political culture in which heroes and villains are manufactured while the institutions that actually make decisions escape scrutiny.

The NDC primaries provide an opportunity to do things differently. Those with genuine complaints should direct them to the appropriate organs of the party. Those seeking explanations should examine the structures responsible for organising the process. Those analysing the outcome should resist the temptation to substitute perception for reality.

As the administrative nerve centre of the party, the National Working Committee bears responsibility for ensuring that primaries are conducted in accordance with party rules. It is expected to guarantee fairness, transparency, due process, and equal opportunity for all aspirants.

Where disputes arise, it is the NWC that possesses the institutional authority to investigate complaints, review decisions, establish appeal panels, and recommend corrective actions where necessary. That is precisely why political parties create internal dispute resolution mechanisms. Democracy is not designed to eliminate disagreements; it is designed to provide orderly procedures for resolving them.

Obi and Kwankwaso may be influential figures within the alliance, but influence should never be confused with control. They did not create the NDC, they do not run its National Working Committee, and they were not responsible for conducting its primaries.

The path forward for aggrieved aspirants therefore lies not in public accusations against fellow candidates but in constructive engagement with the party’s institutional processes. Aspirants who believe they were unfairly treated should formally document their grievances and submit petitions to the appropriate party organs. They should utilise internal appeal and review mechanisms before seeking external remedies. They should also present evidence rather than assumptions, as allegations are strengthened by facts, not emotions.

Similarly, party leaders must ensure that all complaints are handled transparently, fairly, and expeditiously in order to preserve confidence in the party’s democratic credentials.

Finally, supporters of all tendencies within the NDC must recognise that alliance politics requires compromise, patience, and respect for institutional processes. Political movements can contribute energy, popularity, and momentum to a party, but they cannot replace the structures that govern it.

The burden of the NDC primaries should therefore rest where democratic principles place it: on the institutions responsible for conducting the exercise and on the mechanisms established to review grievances arising from it.

Blaming Obi and Kwankwaso may provide temporary emotional satisfaction, but it does not address the substantive issues at stake. If democracy is to mature within political parties, accountability must be directed at the appropriate institutions, not at individuals who merely occupy the political spotlight.

Ultimately, the future of the NDC will not be determined by how loudly accusations are made, but by how faithfully its members respect the rules, institutions, and democratic processes that bind them together.

The lesson from the NDC primaries is straightforward: political interpretation must be guided by facts, not assumptions. In a democracy, responsibility should rest with those who exercise authority, not with those who merely participate in the process.

Anything less risks turning political analysis into political fiction.

Kalu Okoronkwo is a communications strategist, a leadership and good governance advocate dedicated to impactful societal development and can be reached via kalu.okoronkwo@gmail.com