When Party Members Lose Faith, Democracy Loses Too: Fixing Nigeria’s Election System

For many Nigerians, the first experience of electoral disappointment may not happen at a polling unit. It can happen inside the political party they belong to.

A party member can spend weeks mobilising supporters, attending meetings, paying dues and campaigning for an aspirant, only to leave a primary wondering whether the ballot they cast ever mattered.

That is the deeper issue raised by the controversy surrounding the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) primary in Lagos’ Alimosho constituency. Supporters of Ife Salako allege that he secured the votes at the primary but was not declared the winner. They are asking the party leadership to review the exercise and honour what they believe was the choice of party members.

The specific claim remains a matter for the party to address, but the larger question is impossible to ignore: how can Nigerians trust the outcome of a general election if they cannot trust the process that produces the candidates?

Nigeria’s electoral conversation has traditionally focused on what happens on Election Day—accreditation, voting, BVAS, security, result collation and transmission. Yet one of the most important decisions is made much earlier, behind the walls of party meetings and primaries: deciding who gets the party’s ticket.

That is where meaningful electoral reform must begin.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has recognised the problem. As preparations for the 2027 elections intensify, the Commission says opaque party primaries, membership disputes and weak internal democracy have contributed to unnecessary litigation and electoral uncertainty. INEC is now reviewing its regulations for political parties to align them with the Electoral Act 2026.

The message is straightforward: credible elections cannot be built on questionable candidate-selection processes.

One practical solution is to make every party primary traceable from beginning to end.

Before voting starts, political parties should publish the register of eligible members or delegates who will participate. Aspirants should have enough time to challenge questionable names, exclusions or last-minute additions.

On voting day, accreditation figures should be recorded. Voting should be properly supervised. Results from each voting location should be signed by officials and representatives of the aspirants, with copies made available to all sides.

Then comes the most important part: the result should be published promptly.

If a candidate claims to have won while the party announces someone else, there should be a documentary trail capable of settling the disagreement—not competing claims, rumours and political pressure.

Nigeria already has the beginnings of such a framework. The Electoral Act 2026 provides for INEC monitoring of party primaries, while the Commission’s regulations include provisions governing political-party administration and primaries.

But the law alone will not change political behaviour. The people conducting the primaries must be trusted.

A party primary becomes difficult to believe when those responsible for organising it are openly aligned with one aspirant. Parties should therefore consider independent primary committees with clear conflict-of-interest rules, publicly known procedures and observers representing all contestants.

Technology can help, but it should not become the excuse for avoiding accountability.

Digital accreditation, electronic result management and secure publication of results can create a reliable record. But technology cannot stop a determined political actor from manipulating the process if the people controlling the system are compromised.

The answer is therefore a combination of technology, transparency and independent oversight.

There is also a need for speed.

Aspirants who believe they have been cheated should have access to a credible internal appeal process with strict deadlines. They should not have to wait years for a court judgment before knowing whether their political rights were violated.

This is particularly important as Nigeria approaches the 2027 elections. INEC has already said that reducing pre-election disputes is central to its reform agenda, while the Electoral Act 2026 places greater emphasis on resolving some candidate-related disputes before elections.

Recent legal developments have also shown how unsettled the rules around party primaries remain. In July 2026, the Court of Appeal struck down provisions of the Electoral Act concerning party primaries and membership registers, ruling that the provisions conflicted with constitutional protections relating to political parties. The development has added another layer to the debate over how far the state should regulate internal party affairs.

That debate should not obscure the bigger objective: protecting the ordinary party member.

Whether the member belongs to a major party or a smaller platform, the principle should be the same. If they are asked to vote, their vote should have a verifiable destination.

Political parties must also understand that internal democracy is not weakness.

Allowing members to disagree, compete and challenge decisions does not destroy a party. What destroys confidence is the perception that decisions have already been made before members are invited to vote.

The Alimosho controversy, therefore, should not be viewed simply as another political quarrel. It is a reminder of what is at stake before Nigerians even get to the polling booth.

If party members believe that powerful individuals can overturn the outcome of a primary, some may lose interest in participating. Others may resort to litigation, protests or factional battles. Eventually, the dispute moves from the party headquarters to the courts and, sometimes, into the wider society.

That is costly for democracy.

The solution is not complicated in principle, even if implementing it will require political courage.

Publish the rules. Publish the voters. Protect the process. Record every vote. Publish the results. Provide a fast appeal. And make the people responsible for the process accountable.

Most importantly, political parties must stop treating their members as spectators.

A Nigerian who joins a political party should not need connections to have their vote count. A young person attending a primary for the first time should not leave believing that the outcome was predetermined. An aspirant who loses should be able to accept defeat because the process was transparent enough to make the result believable.

That is how trust is built.

And when that trust exists inside political parties, it becomes easier to build it across the wider electoral system.

Because, ultimately, the road to a free and fair general election does not begin at the polling unit. It begins the day a party member is told: “Your vote counts.”

The real test is whether the party can prove it.