Premature Announcements and Party Process: An Appraisal of the APC Cross River Primaries Episode
By Peter Agi
If only stakeholders in APC Cross River State had been patient and awaited the final declaration from the APC National Working Committee regarding the results of the primaries, much of the current controversy could have been avoided. The question now is why the rush. Why the desperation to announce results at the state level when the National Working Committee had already stated that it was not the duty of the state to do so? Is the urgency meant to create facts on the ground and pressure the National to ratify what the state presents?
The sequence of events follows a familiar pattern in Nigerian party politics. Primaries are conducted at the district and state levels, with returning officers at each level collating and announcing results. The party constitution and guidelines, however, place the final authority for submission of candidates to INEC with the National Working Committee. The NWC reviews reports from the electoral committees, addresses petitions, and makes the formal declaration. This structure exists to standardize the process, reconcile discrepancies, and give the party a single, defensible position.
When state stakeholders announce results before the NWC concludes its review, they are operating outside the prescribed procedure. The immediate effect is to create competing narratives. District returning officers may submit one set of figures to the state, while the state returning officer produces another. If the state proceeds to declare based on its own collation, it risks a mismatch with what the district officers recorded. Waiting for the NWC process allows those discrepancies to be examined, reconciled, or explained through the party’s internal mechanism. Announcing early forecloses that opportunity and turns administrative review into a political contest.
For the party, the implications are straightforward. First, it weakens internal discipline. If state actors can unilaterally declare results, the role of the NWC becomes ceremonial rather than substantive. That erodes the central authority needed to manage disputes and present a unified front to INEC and the public. Second, it invites litigation. Aspirants who feel shortchanged will point to the divergence between district, state, and national figures as evidence of irregularity, and courts will be asked to determine which set of figures reflects the actual vote. Third, it distracts from campaigning. Energy that should go into mobilizing for the general election is instead spent on defending or challenging a process that was not allowed to conclude.
For political watchers, the episode is instructive about how party primaries function in practice. The public often sees the announcement as the end point. In reality, within party structures, the announcement is only binding after the national organ ratifies it. When that distinction is ignored, observers are left parsing competing claims and assessing which faction has the stronger leverage within the party hierarchy. That erodes confidence in the process, even when the underlying vote count is straightforward.
It is disheartening to see the level of desperation and naivety on display. Desperation, because the rush suggests a fear that a fair review at the national level would alter the outcome. Naivety, because the expectation that the National would simply endorse whatever the state declares misunderstands the role of the NWC as a check on sub-national variation and as a buffer against local disputes.
Had the state waited, the discrepancies between district and state returning officers could have been addressed through the party’s internal audit. The NWC’s review is designed precisely for that: to compare figures, review petitions, and ensure that what is submitted to INEC reflects the process as conducted. Waiting does not guarantee agreement, but it guarantees that disagreement is based on a documented review rather than on competing press releases.
The broader implication is about institutionalization. Political parties cannot operate as federations of independent state chapters if they intend to present coherent candidates and programs. The Cross River case shows the cost of bypassing procedure for speed. Speed without process produces uncertainty. Process without speed tests patience, but it preserves the legitimacy of the outcome.
The path forward for the party is to reaffirm that only the NWC makes final declarations, to communicate that clearly to state chapters, and to apply sanctions consistently when the rule is breached. For stakeholders in the state, the lesson is that patience in process is not weakness. It is the mechanism by which disputes are narrowed and the party’s position is strengthened.
Just imagine the shoddiness in computational terms. So much for disparity between results as announced. Chaiiiii! This does not represent the capacity Cross River State is known.
Peter Agi (FCA) is a Public Affairs Commentator. He Writes from Ijegu-Ojor, Yala LGA
