The emergence of the National Democratic Congress, NDC, as political platform don attract plenty different political tendencies and support groups. Among di most notable na supporters of Mr. Peter Obi, former Governor of Anambra State, and Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, former Governor of Kano State. Both politicians don show strong electoral appeal and grassroots support, making dem influential figures for Nigeria political calculations. Dem arrival for NDC inject fresh energy into di party and generate enthusiasm among supporters wey see di alliance as vehicle for political renewal and credible challenge to di established political order.
However, politics often be about perception as much as reality. For di aftermath of party primaries, emotions dey high, expectations dey collide with outcomes, and disappointed aspirants dey search for explanations. For such moments, facts often dey overshadowed by sentiments, and political actors become targets of accusations for events wey dem get little or no control. Dis one appear to be di unfolding situation after di NDC primaries.
Wetin suppose be internal party exercise to select candidates for various elective offices don, for some quarters, turn to blame game. Aspirants wey fail to secure tickets don begin look beyond di party established structures for explanations, with some directing dem frustrations at Peter Obi, Kwankwaso, di Obidient Movement, and di Kwankwasiya Movement. Di controversy raise important question: who suppose bear responsibility for di outcome of di NDC primaries? Di answer fit no be politically convenient, but e necessary if democratic institutions go be strengthened instead of weakened.
Political excitement fit sometimes create unrealistic expectations. For some aspirants, affiliation with either di Obidient Movement or di Kwankwasiya Movement appear to foster di belief say party tickets to different elective positions go be automatic. Di assumption simple: if Obi and Kwankwaso be di most popular figures inside di alliance, then dem followers suppose enjoy preferential treatment for di distribution of political opportunities. Such narrative fit be politically appealing, but e ignore di realities of party administration and di principles wey govern internal party democracy.
To understand di situation well, e important to begin with simple fact: Obi and Kwankwaso be relatively new entrants into di NDC. Alongside many of dem supporters, dem join di party only recently. Before dem arrival, there be loyal party members wey don spend years building structures, sustaining party activities, and keeping di organisation alive through difficult periods. Dese longstanding members fit rightly claim say dem don make sacrifices for di party long before di arrival of Obi, Kwankwaso, di Obidients, and di Kwankwasiya Movement. Dem help lay di foundation wey di party stand on today. So, e go be historically inaccurate to portray Obi and Kwankwaso as controllers of political structure wey dem neither found nor manage.
Political parties be institutions wey dey governed by constitutions, rules, and administrative organs. Di authority to organise congresses, conduct primaries, resolve disputes, and determine party procedures dey rest with di party leadership structures, particularly di National Working Committee, NWC, and relevant state executive committees. At present, neither Obi nor Kwankwaso dey control di NWC of di NDC. Dem no involve for di formation of di party, nor dem dey exercise administrative authority over its internal mechanisms. Dem status inside di party be dat of aspirants and candidates, not party administrators. Dis reality make e difficult to sustain arguments wey seek to hold dem responsible for di conduct or outcome of di primaries.
For every democratic system, there be distinction between those wey dey seek office and those wey dey manage di process through which candidates emerge. Di umpire and di contestant no be di same. When dat distinction become blurred, confusion and misplaced accusations dey follow. Obi and Kwankwaso, like every other aspirant, be participants for di party democratic process. Dem be issued tickets to contest under di platform of di NDC. Beyond dat, there be little evidence to suggest say dem exercise authority over candidates selection for states and constituencies across di country.
One of di enduring principles of party politics be di doctrine of party supremacy. Courts, political analysts, and party constitutions don consistently affirm say political parties retain significant authority over dem internal affairs. While candidates fit express opinions, offer advice, or appeal for di reconsideration of certain decisions, dem no expect to usurp di powers of party organs wey dey charged with managing internal processes. If aggrieved aspirants believe say irregularities occur during di primaries, there be internal party organs wey dem fit go to seek redress, like di Appeals Committee of di National Working Committee. Investigations fit dey conducted, recommendations made, and corrective measures implemented where necessary.
E important to note say some analysts and political observers dey risk misreading di current situation. Di popularity of Obi and Kwankwaso don create large political following around dem. Di Obidient and Kwankwasiya movements don evolve into powerful political brands wey fit influence public discourse and mobilise supporters. However, political influence no suppose be mistaken for administrative authority. Di ability to inspire supporters different from di power to conduct primaries. Di capacity to attract votes no be di same as di authority to determine candidates lists. Enthusiasm among followers no automatically translate into control of party structure.
So, supporters wey expect Obi or Kwankwaso to determine di outcome of di primaries fit don misunderstand di limits of dem roles inside di party. Political movements fit join party, energise its membership, and contribute to its electoral prospects, but dem no automatically inherit control of its governance mechanisms. Dat process require time, negotiation, consensus building, and adherence to party rules. Dis episode offer important lesson for electoral interpretation: not every political disappointment suppose dey personalised, and not every unfavourable outcome suppose dey attributed to prominent political figure.
Democracy dey function best when institutions dey allowed to perform dem roles and when responsibilities dey assigned appropriately. Blaming Obi or Kwankwaso for decisions allegedly taken by party organs dey risk create false narratives wey neither resolve grievances nor strengthen internal party democracy. Such accusations fit satisfy emotions, but dem do little to advance justice, accountability, or institutional development. Nigeria political space already suffer from excessive tendency to personalise institutions. Too often, citizens dey interpret party decisions, government actions, and electoral outcomes through di lens of individuals instead of systems. Di result na political culture where heroes and villains dey manufactured while di institutions wey actually make decisions dey escape scrutiny.
Di NDC primaries provide opportunity to do things differently. Those wey get genuine complaints suppose direct dem to di appropriate organs of di party. Those wey dey seek explanations suppose examine di structures responsible for organising di process. Those wey dey analyse di outcome suppose resist di temptation to substitute perception for reality. As di administrative nerve centre of di party, di National Working Committee bear responsibility for ensuring say primaries dey conducted according to party rules. E dey expected to guarantee fairness, transparency, due process, and equal opportunity for all aspirants. Where disputes arise, e be di NWC wey possess di institutional authority to investigate complaints, review decisions, establish appeal panels, and recommend corrective actions where necessary.
Dat na exactly why political parties create internal dispute resolution mechanisms. Democracy no design to eliminate disagreements; e design to provide orderly procedures for resolving dem. Obi and Kwankwaso fit be influential figures inside di alliance, but influence no suppose dey confused with control. Dem no create di NDC, dem no run its National Working Committee, and dem no responsible for conducting its primaries. Di path forward for aggrieved aspirants therefore dey lie not for public accusations against fellow candidates but for constructive engagement with di party institutional processes.
Aspirants wey believe say dem unfairly treated suppose formally document dem grievances and submit petitions to di appropriate party organs. Dem suppose utilise internal appeal and review mechanisms before seeking external remedies. Dem also suppose present evidence instead of assumptions, as allegations dey strengthened by facts, not emotions. Similarly, party leaders must ensure say all complaints dey handled transparently, fairly, and expeditiously to preserve confidence for di party democratic credentials.
Finally, supporters of all tendencies inside di NDC must recognise say alliance politics require compromise, patience, and respect for institutional processes. Political movements fit contribute energy, popularity, and momentum to party, but dem no fit replace di structures wey govern am. Di burden of di NDC primaries suppose therefore rest where democratic principles place am: on di institutions responsible for conducting di exercise and on di mechanisms established to review grievances arising from am. Blaming Obi and Kwankwaso fit provide temporary emotional satisfaction, but e no address di substantive issues at stake. If democracy go mature within political parties, accountability must dey directed at di appropriate institutions, not at individuals wey merely occupy di political spotlight.
Ultimately, di future of di NDC no go determine by how loudly accusations dey made, but by how faithfully its members respect di rules, institutions, and democratic processes wey bind dem together. Di lesson from di NDC primaries straightforward: political interpretation must dey guided by facts, not assumptions. For democracy, responsibility suppose rest with those wey exercise authority, not with those wey merely participate for di process. Anything less dey risk turn political analysis into political fiction.
