By SKC Ogbonnia

The passage of the 2026 Nigerian Electoral Act has generated expectations of stronger democratic safeguards, particularly around internal party processes, candidate nomination and the conduct of elections. The new framework places considerable emphasis on compliance with statutory and party procedures.

Against this background, developments within the Enugu State chapter of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) have raised questions among party stakeholders about the legitimacy of competing party structures and the process through which candidates for the 2027 elections may emerge.

The dispute has produced two competing positions within the Enugu State chapter.

On one side is the NDC State Working Committee led by Dr. JohnPaul Anih, a former university student union leader who has attracted considerable support among young people. Supporters of this group maintain that the executive emerged from a state congress which, according to them, was monitored by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and representatives of the party’s national leadership.

On the other side is a group led by Comrade Ibuchukwu Obeta and associated with Dr. Okwy Nwodo, a former Governor of Enugu State and former National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Supporters of this group maintain that it enjoys recognition from elements within the national leadership of the NDC.

The disagreement raises important questions about the relationship between state party structures, the National Working Committee (NWC), internal party democracy and the statutory requirements for candidate nomination.

The first question is whether a candidate emerging from a disputed state party structure can validly participate in an election where questions remain about the legitimacy of the structure that produced the candidate.

The second is whether a state executive that claims to have emerged from a valid congress can sponsor candidates without complying with the nomination procedures prescribed by the party’s constitution, guidelines and the Electoral Act.

These questions are ultimately matters for the appropriate party organs and, where necessary, the courts to determine.

The Genesis of the Dispute

The dispute intensified following the movement of political actors from the African Democratic Congress (ADC) into the NDC.

The development generated disagreements over how the incoming political actors should be integrated into the existing NDC structure.

I was present at an early meeting involving members of the incoming group and that discussions at the meeting included proposals concerning the restructuring of the party organisation in the state.

Supporters of the Anih-led structure subsequently interpreted these developments as an attempt to replace an existing state organisation. Those associated with the other side, however, have a different understanding of the events and maintain that the current arrangement reflects the political realities and interests within the party.

It is therefore important that the competing accounts be subjected to the party’s constitution, records of congresses, relevant notices and documentation submitted to INEC.

Legitimacy Versus Recognition

The central issue in the Enugu dispute is not merely which group has greater political influence, but which structure complies with the party’s constitution and applicable electoral law.

Supporters of Dr. Anih maintain that his executive was elected at a state congress and that the process had the involvement of relevant electoral and party officials.

The opposing group, meanwhile, relies on its claimed recognition within the national leadership of the party.

This creates a potentially difficult situation in which the state-level claim of legitimacy and the national-level question of recognition may not necessarily point in the same direction.

The resolution should therefore be based on documentary evidence, the party constitution, applicable electoral legislation and any binding judicial decisions, rather than political influence or competing public statements.

The G80 Question

The controversy has also attracted the attention of a group known as the G80, comprising more than 80 aspirants and stakeholders who have expressed concerns about the direction of the party’s affairs in Enugu State.

The group has reportedly questioned aspects of the process through which the party’s structures and prospective candidates are being handled.

The G80 has also expressed dissatisfaction with the roles being played by several senior party figures.

At the heart of the G80’s position is the argument that internal party democracy and transparent nomination procedures should not be compromised in the interest of political expediency.

The Candidate Nomination Question

The most consequential issue arising from the dispute concerns the status of candidates who may emerge from the competing structures.

Under Nigerian electoral law, political parties must comply with prescribed procedures for the nomination of candidates. The relevant processes include the conduct of primaries or other legally recognised methods of candidate selection, as well as compliance with applicable party rules and requirements for submission of candidates to INEC.

Consequently, the legitimacy of any candidate produced in Enugu will depend not simply on which faction claims to have nominated the person, but on whether the relevant statutory and party requirements have been satisfied.

Where competing structures produce competing claims, the question of which list can validly be recognised becomes a matter of considerable legal and electoral importance.

Lessons From Previous Supreme Court Decisions

The dispute also makes it necessary to examine previous decisions of the Supreme Court concerning party primaries, congresses and candidate nomination.

In APC v. Marafa, the Supreme Court dealt with the consequences of a political party’s failure to comply with applicable requirements relating to the nomination of candidates. The decision remains an important reference point in discussions about the consequences of defective party primaries.

Other decisions, including Emeka v. Okadigbo, Ugba v. Suswam and Lado v. CPC, have also been cited in discussions concerning party congresses, delegate lists, internal party procedures and the limits of judicial intervention in party affairs.

However, the precise application of any precedent depends on the facts and legal issues before the court in each particular case. It would therefore be inappropriate to assume that any one of these decisions automatically determines the present Enugu dispute.

The courts will ultimately consider the applicable law, the party’s constitution and guidelines, documentary evidence and the specific circumstances surrounding the disputed processes.

The Risk of Electoral Uncertainty

The present situation carries significant implications for the NDC in Enugu State.

If competing party structures continue to claim authority, the party could face uncertainty over which executive is competent to conduct or supervise nomination processes and which list of candidates should be presented to INEC.

Such uncertainty could expose prospective candidates to avoidable litigation and create difficulties for the party as it prepares for the 2027 elections.

The issue therefore deserves urgent attention from the national leadership of the NDC and all relevant stakeholders.

Rather than allowing the dispute to deepen, the party should consider a transparent process for reconciling the competing positions. Such a process should be firmly anchored in the party constitution, the Electoral Act, INEC requirements and any applicable judicial decisions.

A Call for Reconciliation

The Enugu NDC dispute provides an opportunity for the party to demonstrate its commitment to internal democracy.

Whatever the competing political interests may be, the overriding consideration should be the establishment of a process that can withstand legal scrutiny and command the confidence of party members and prospective candidates.

Dr. JohnPaul Anih and members of his faction believe their congress gives them a legitimate basis to lead the state organisation. The opposing group believes it has the backing necessary to operate within the party structure.

Rather than treating either position as conclusively established without adjudication, the responsible course is to allow the relevant party authorities and, where necessary, the courts to determine the matter on the basis of evidence and law.

The 2027 elections are too important for any political party to enter the contest burdened by unresolved disputes over its own structures and candidates.

The NDC can still avoid a prolonged legal battle by pursuing a transparent harmonisation process within the framework of its constitution and the Electoral Act.

Ultimately, the credibility of the party’s candidates will depend not merely on political endorsement, but on the integrity and legality of the process through which they emerge.

*SKC Ogbonnia, a leadership scholar, writes from Ugbo, Enugu State