The recent national convention of the All Progressives Congress (APC), at which thousands of delegates affirmed Nentawe Yilwatda as national chairman, has been widely interpreted as a demonstration of party unity. Coming after his “appointment” by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to succeed Abdullahi Ganduje, the exercise was notably calm, organised, and devoid of the rancour that often defines such gatherings. There is, however, a deeper conversation about power, process, and the future of party politics in Nigeria.
Consensus, as deployed by the APC in this instance, is neither new nor uniquely controversial. It has long been a tool used by political parties to manage competing interests and avoid destructive internal contests. In a party as expansive and diverse as the APC, which draws support from multiple zones, ethnicities, and political tendencies, the attraction of consensus is understandable. It minimises friction, shortens timelines, and projects an image of cohesion that is politically advantageous, especially for a ruling party seeking to consolidate its hold on power.
However, consensus also carries inherent contradictions. By its very nature, it limits open competition and curtails the ambitions of those who may wish to test their popularity or ideas within the party framework. While the convention recorded no visible dissent, it would be naïve to assume that all interests were satisfied. Political grievances in Nigeria are often muted in the moment, only to resurface later in more disruptive forms. The experience of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), once dominant but later weakened by internal fractures, is a good example.
President Tinubu’s decisive role in shaping the outcome further underscores a familiar pattern in Nigeria’s politics, where incumbency exerts a strong influence over party structures. While such involvement can provide direction and coherence, it also raises concerns about the concentration of power and the erosion of internal democracy. When leadership selection becomes a function of endorsement rather than contest, the risk is that party institutions may gradually weaken, becoming subordinate to individual authority rather than collective will.
To be fair, the APC’s approach has immediate benefits. A rancour-free convention sends a reassuring signal to party members, investors in the political process, and even the international community that the ruling party remains stable. In a political environment often characterised by volatility, this stability is not insignificant.
Yet, stability achieved through consensus must be carefully managed if it is to endure. The task before Yilwatda is, therefore, both delicate and demanding. He must move quickly to build bridges across the party’s various factions, ensuring that those who feel sidelined by the consensus arrangement are not left to fester in quiet resentment. Inclusivity, in this sense, becomes not just a moral imperative but a strategic necessity. A party that appears united on the surface but is internally fractured risks sudden and severe implosion.
Beyond internal management, the APC faces an even more consequential challenge: maintaining public trust. With control of a significant number of state governments, the party’s dominance is evident. However, political dominance does not automatically translate into widespread popular support. Nigerians are increasingly attentive to governance outcomes, and their expectations are shaped less by party structures than by lived realities.
This raises important questions about the APC’s electoral future. Will the party rely on its organisational strength and numerical advantage, or will it seek to win elections through demonstrable performance and credible processes? The answer to this question will determine not only the party’s longevity but also the health of Nigeria’s democracy. Elections that are perceived as free and fair enhance legitimacy, while those clouded by suspicion can erode public confidence, regardless of the outcome.
The notion of a “one-party state,” which has begun to surface in political conversations, also deserves careful consideration. While the APC’s growing influence might suggest such a trajectory, Nigeria’s political landscape remains too complex and dynamic to be easily dominated by a single party. The resilience of opposition forces, the diversity of voter preferences, and the institutional safeguards embedded in the democratic system all serve as counterweights to any one party’s ambitions. Nonetheless, the APC must be mindful that perceptions of overreach or monopoly can generate resistance, both within and outside its ranks.
Ultimately, the success of the APC under its new leadership will depend on its ability to balance power with principle. Consensus may have delivered a smooth transition, but it cannot be a substitute for accountability, inclusiveness, and performance. Yilwatda’s leadership will be judged not by the ease with which he assumed office, but by the effectiveness with which he manages the party’s internal dynamics and contributes to national governance.
