At the heart of the tension is a fundamental disagreement over the balance of power. The party's National Working Committee views the directive as a direct erosion of its constitutional authority to manage primaries and ensure a semblance of internal democracy. Members of this central body feel sidelined, arguing that reducing their role to mere spectators in the candidate selection process renders the national party apparatus redundant. There is a palpable fear that this not only weakens the party's institutional framework but also demoralizes its dedicated structures across the country, who see their years of mobilization efforts being trivialized by executive fiat.
The repercussions are not confined to Abuja's committee rooms; they are manifesting vividly in state-level politics, turning previously managed rivalries into open warfare. In Abia State, a very public clash has erupted between two prominent figures, each claiming exclusive presidential endorsement to lead the party in the state, despite the governor belonging to an opposing political party. This scenario highlights how the directive can create competing centers of authority, leading to confusion and damaging public spats that undermine party unity.
Delta State presents another acute case, where the governor's reported support for a former governor's senatorial ambition has put him at odds with a former Deputy Senate President and his faction. The situation is so volatile that there is speculation all current senators from the state might lose their bids for re-election, creating immense anxiety and uncertainty. Party elders point to this as a classic example of how removing a neutral arbiter—the national party—can exacerbate local conflicts rather than resolve them.
Similarly, in Nasarawa State, the governor's alleged preference for a relatively new defector over longstanding party members has triggered a formidable alliance of opposition, including a former governor and a former Inspector-General of Police. This sets the stage for a bitter internal contest that could drain resources and focus away from electoral preparation. In Cross River State, the tension is between the party's original founders and recent high-profile defectors from other parties, with the governor caught in the middle of deciding whose loyalty should be rewarded. This has led to threats and counter-threats, destabilizing the political environment.
The wave of unrest is remarkably widespread. In Rivers State, the complex and already volatile relationship between the current governor and the influential Federal Capital Territory Minister is being further strained by interpretations of the new power dynamics. In Benue State, a rift between the governor and the Secretary to the Government of the Federation has effectively split the party into two parallel structures. Perhaps most symbolically significant is the situation in Akwa Ibom, where the directive is seen as diminishing the influence of the Senate President in his own home state in favor of the governor, creating an institutional friction between two high offices.
A recurring concern among party insiders is the long-term strategic damage. They warn that when party faithful feel the system is rigged or that their loyalty counts for nothing, they simply disengage. Mobilization, a critical component of electoral success, suffers as aggrieved members withhold their energy and resources. The fear is that this internal disaffection presents a golden opportunity for opposition parties to exploit these divisions and make significant inroads.
The official party response has been one of notable caution, with spokespersons reluctant to comment on the record, indicating the sensitivity and potentially explosive nature of the issue. This silence itself speaks volumes about the depth of the unease. The overarching narrative is no longer simply about candidate selection; it has evolved into a critical test of the party's internal governance, its ability to manage competing interests, and its capacity to present a united front. What was envisioned as a streamlining measure risks becoming the catalyst for a multi-front internal crisis that could define the party's prospects and stability for years to come. The coming weeks and months will reveal whether compromise and recalibration are possible, or if the party is indeed on a path where centralized authority is permanently weakened in favor of gubernatorial dominions, fundamentally altering its character and operational dynamics.
