By Paul Ibe
What does it mean to belong to a political party in Nigeria today? Is membership still an expression of political conviction, loyalty and commitment to shared principles, or merely a convenient label politicians retain while pursuing the electoral interests of rival parties? These questions have become urgent following the inclusion of prominent opposition figures in President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Campaign Council for the 2027 election.
Nyesom Wike, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory and a member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), has been appointed campaign coordinator for Rivers State and the FCT. Governor Ademola Adeleke of Osun State, elected on the platform of Accord, has been assigned responsibility for Osun, while Governor Chukwuma Soludo of Anambra State, an All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) member, has been named coordinator for his state. These appointments raise fundamental questions about party discipline, institutional integrity and the future of multiparty democracy in Nigeria.
There is nothing inherently wrong with cooperation between politicians from different parties. Democracy accommodates alliances and common interests. However, a fundamental distinction exists between cooperating with a government in the national interest and accepting responsibility for securing the electoral victory of a rival political party. The former is legitimate governmental cooperation. The latter raises serious questions about political loyalty and compliance with party constitutions.
Can politicians remain members of opposition parties while actively coordinating the presidential campaign of the ruling party? And if their parties approve such arrangements, what remains of their opposition identity? Consider the PDP Constitution. Section 58(1)(f) addresses anti-party activity as a disciplinary offence, while Sections 10(6) and 59 contain provisions relevant to party obligations and disciplinary sanctions.
Wike’s support for Tinubu is hardly new. His appointment as FCT Minister under an APC administration, despite retaining PDP membership, has generated controversy. However, serving in a government headed by a president from another party is not necessarily equivalent to coordinating that president’s re-election campaign. His appointment to the APC Presidential Campaign Council takes the relationship beyond governmental cooperation into direct electoral participation.
Reports that the PDP previously authorised Wike to support Tinubu raise an important question: authorised him to do what? Was it permission to cooperate on governance, express personal political support or participate fully in the APC’s presidential campaign machinery? If the PDP authorised such participation, Nigerians deserve to know which constitutionally competent organ granted that permission and whether it is consistent with the party’s electoral objectives. A party cannot credibly enforce constitutional discipline against ordinary members while treating the political loyalties of its most powerful members as negotiable privileges.
Governor Adeleke’s position presents an equally remarkable contradiction. Accord’s Constitution contains provisions on membership obligations, party loyalty and disciplinary procedures. Yet Adeleke has been assigned responsibility for coordinating Tinubu’s presidential campaign in Osun State. More significantly, on October 5, 2026, the Federal High Court in Abuja reportedly ordered Accord and the Independent National Electoral Commission to recognise Gbenga Olawepo-Hashim as the party’s presidential candidate for the 2027 election. Olawepo-Hashim subsequently challenged Adeleke’s support for Tinubu, maintaining that the governor could not dictate the electoral preferences of Accord members.
How does a party reconcile recognition of its own presidential candidate with its elected governor coordinating the campaign of a rival presidential candidate? If Accord has formally adopted Tinubu, which constitutional organ authorised that decision, and how does it relate to the judicial recognition of Olawepo-Hashim? Soludo’s inclusion in the APC campaign organisation raises similar questions for APGA, although the party’s constitution and decisions must be examined independently.
Nigeria has witnessed controversies over anti-party activity before. The rebellion of the PDP’s G5 governors ahead of the 2023 presidential election demonstrated how conflicting political loyalties weaken party cohesion. But the present development goes further. We are witnessing prominent members of different political parties being assigned formal responsibilities within the ruling party’s presidential campaign structure.
Political parties exist to organise electoral competition, articulate alternative programmes and offer citizens meaningful choices. When these distinctions disappear, multiparty democracy risks becoming a ceremonial arrangement rather than a system of genuine political alternatives.
Admittedly, not every cross-party endorsement constitutes anti-party activity. Parties may legitimately form alliances and adopt common candidates, provided such arrangements comply with their constitutions and applicable laws. However, such decisions must be transparent and properly authorised.
I have gathered that concerned members of the PDP and Accord are poised to approach the courts to seek judicial determination of the legality and constitutionality of chieftains of their respective parties being drafted into the ruling APC’s presidential campaign council, without the requisite authorisation of their parties.
That is the way to go.
The controversy should not be left to political rhetoric, selective interpretations of party constitutions or the whims of influential politicians. The courts should be invited to determine whether party leaders can lend their membership, influence and offices to the electoral ambitions of rival parties without appropriate constitutional authorisation, and whether such conduct violates party rules or infringes the rights of members.
There is an important distinction between an individual’s freedom of political association and the obligation to comply with the constitution of a political party to which that individual voluntarily belongs. No politician, however powerful, should enjoy immunity from obligations that remain binding on ordinary party members
Judicial intervention could help clarify the boundaries between legitimate political cooperation, authorised electoral alliances and conduct constituting anti-party activity. The PDP should clarify the constitutional basis of Wike’s participation in Tinubu’s campaign. Accord should explain Adeleke’s appointment in relation to its own presidential candidacy. APGA should equally clarify the institutional authority for Soludo’s participation.
These questions demand answers because party constitutions cannot remain binding on ordinary members while becoming optional for politically influential individuals.
Ultimately, this controversy extends beyond Wike, Adeleke and Soludo. It concerns the credibility of Nigeria’s political party system and the relationship between political organisations and citizens whose support they seek.
An opposition party is not required to oppose every government policy. But when its leading members formally coordinate the incumbent’s re-election campaign, it owes its members and voters an explanation of what distinguishes its political project from that of the ruling party.
A healthy multiparty democracy requires more than registered parties, colourful flags, electoral symbols and competing acronyms. It requires identifiable political alternatives, institutional consistency and respect for voters’ expectations.
Tinubu is entitled to receive support from politicians outside the APC. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether politicians can actively organise the electoral victory of a rival party while retaining membership of parties whose own constitutions impose obligations of loyalty.
If party constitutions can be selectively interpreted and electoral loyalties transferred without institutional accountability, political parties risk becoming vehicles of personal convenience rather than instruments of democratic representation.
And when supposed opposition parties help organise the re-election of the ruling party’s presidential candidate, Nigerians are entitled to ask: what exactly makes them opposition parties?
Paul Ibe, Media Adviser to Atiku Abubakar, writes from Abuja.
