Legal practitioner Frank Tietie has claimed that the All Progressives Congress is handing significant influence over its 2027 primary election process to state governors. He made the remarks in an interview aired on Arise Television on Sunday, citing growing concerns about transparency and individual rights within the party's internal democracy. According to Tietie, the central leadership of the APC, including the presidency, is allowing governors to shape the selection of candidates, which could ultimately benefit the incumbent president's political position.
Tietie emphasized that while the decision to adopt a consensus model is political, it raises legal and procedural concerns for aspirants who voluntarily withdraw in favor of a consensus candidate. He argued that such aspirants must be fully informed about the process used to determine the consensus, including whether it involves voting, negotiation, or another method. Without clear disclosure, he warned, aggrieved individuals may have grounds to challenge the outcome in court.
The lawyer pointed out that aspirants submitting withdrawal forms should know the exact mechanism for selecting the consensus candidate at the time of submission. He cited examples such as ballot voting or even arbitrary methods like throwing dice, stressing that the process must be transparent and agreed upon. Tietie maintained that the rights of individual aspirants are at risk if the rules are not clearly defined and disclosed upfront.
Frank Tietie highlights that APC's central leadership is allowing governors to dominate the 2027 primary process, a move that could shield the president's political interests while weakening aspirants' rights. Aspirants who withdraw for a consensus candidate may have no legal recourse if the selection method is not disclosed when they submit their forms. This creates a system where internal party democracy depends on the transparency of backroom processes known only to those in power. Ordinary aspirants, not governors or the presidency, bear the risk if the consensus process is later challenged in court.
Editorial note: AI-assisted opinion, not established fact. Full disclaimer →
