By Shu’aibu Usman Leman_
The recent flurry of defections to the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Nigeria has ignited a fervent and often acrimonious debate concerning the true motivations underpinning these significant political realignments. While some observers might readily interpret this discernible trend as a resounding endorsement of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s nascent administration and its policy agenda, a growing chorus of dissenting voices is raising profound alarms, positing that fear and overt or subtle coercion – rather than an authentic and deeply-held conviction – are the primary, if not sole, driving forces impelling these high-profile decisions.
This trend, if left unchecked, poses a considerable threat to the very fabric of Nigeria’s nascent democracy.
As rightly highlighted by the International Crisis Group in their perceptive 2020 analysis, “Nigeria’s ruling party has demonstrably employed a diverse array of tactics, both subtle and overt, to systematically erode the strength of the opposition and effectively consolidate its pervasive hold on power.”
This assertion casts a long shadow over the narrative of genuinely voluntary political shifts and begs the question of whether the political landscape is being shaped by genuine conviction or calculated pressure.
A deeply troubling and increasingly worrisome narrative of coercion is conspicuously emerging from the labyrinthine corridors of Nigerian politics. This narrative strongly suggests that members of the erstwhile Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) who opt to remain steadfast in their allegiance face an escalating and relentless barrage of pressure – both tangible and acutely perceived – from the formidable machinery of the ruling party.
Such pressure, if proven, undermines the fundamental principles of multi-party democracy.
As far back as 2020, Human Rights Watch issued a stark and prescient warning, cautioning that “coercion and intimidation can have a profoundly chilling effect on political participation and, more fundamentally, can undermine the very legitimacy and bedrock principles of democratic institutions.”
Such multifaceted coercion can manifest itself in a myriad of insidious ways, including, but by no means limited to, thinly veiled threats of political marginalisation, the impending and very real prospect of a precipitous loss of influence within the intricate tapestry of the political landscape, or even the withdrawal of vital patronage networks.
The psychological toll of such pressure can be immense, forcing individuals to weigh their principles against their political survival and future prospects – a choice no politician in a truly democratic setting should have to make.
Indeed, the disquieting phenomenon of coercively driven political defections is by no means an anomaly confined solely to the geographical boundaries of Nigeria; rather, it is a global concern that transcends national borders and political systems.
The international community has witnessed similar patterns unfolding concerning regularity.
In the Republic of Turkey, for instance, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is frequently and vociferously accused by both domestic and international critics of systematically suppressing all forms of dissent and of engaging in remarkably harsh and often punitive retaliation against any perceived political adversaries. “Erdoğan’s government has, with alarming consistency, cracked down with an iron fist on opposition parties and independent media outlets,” thereby effectively stifling the fundamental human right to freedom of expression and the vibrant exchange of diverse ideas. Similarly, in the Russian Federation, significant political shifts and realignments frequently transpire under palpable duress, where individuals who dare to voice dissent often confront severe repression, the looming threat of legal persecution, or an outright exclusion from vital political institutions and decision-making processes. These international parallels underscore the urgency of addressing such practices within Nigeria, lest it follows a similar trajectory.
Furthermore, examples abound in other regions. In certain South American nations, political shifts can often be influenced by economic inducements or threats of financial ruin, particularly in countries where political figures hold significant sway over economic opportunities. In parts of Southeast Asia, the lure of development projects or infrastructure funding can be used to sway local political figures towards the ruling party, subtly blurring the lines between legitimate political alliance and coerced compliance. These global instances serve as a clear reminder that the erosion of genuine political conviction through various forms of pressure is a challenge faced by democracies worldwide, and Nigeria must be vigilant against its insidious creep.
Defections that are unmistakably driven by coercive factors fundamentally and irrevocably undermine the very essence and integrity of democratic engagement. When political allegiance is demonstrably compelled rather than freely and genuinely chosen through conviction, it inevitably dilutes the robustness and efficacy of opposition parties, thereby stifling authentic political discourse and limiting the spectrum of viable policy alternatives available to the citizenry. Such practices do not foster healthy competition but rather cultivate an environment of political homogeneity, detrimental to robust public debate.
The African Centre for Strategic Studies emphatically reiterates that “coercion and intimidation can irredeemably undermine the legitimacy of democratic institutions and, as an inevitable consequence, result in a significantly diminished and disengaged political participation from the populace.” Such practices cultivate an environment of fear rather than genuine representation, eroding public trust in the democratic process itself and potentially leading to apathy and disengagement.
In his address to the Joint Session of the National Assembly on 12th June this year, President Tinubu unequivocally denied any intention of establishing a one-party state in Nigeria.
He dismissed it as a “terrible rumour” and offered a “most personal promise” that it would not happen.
He referenced his own political history, specifically the 2003 elections, where he was a lone progressive governor resisting the then-governing party’s alleged attempts to create a one-party dominance.
He used this as proof that he would be the “last person to advocate such a scheme.” The President attributed the formation of the APC and his own political trajectory to the “failed effort to create a one-party state” in the past, implying he wouldn’t repeat such a mistake.
While denying a one-party state, he simultaneously welcomed members from other parties who are joining the APC, including Governor Sheriff Oborevwori (Delta) and Pastor Umo Eno (Akwa Ibom), along with other National Assembly members.
He suggested that political parties losing members should examine their “internal processes and affairs” rather than “fearfully conjuring up demons that do not exist” (i.e., blaming the APC for a one-party agenda).
He openly admitted it was a “pleasure to witness you in such disarray.” He concluded by stating that Nigeria should welcome and accept the diversity of political parties, just as it embraces population diversity.
He emphasised working across the political aisle and fostering healthy competition, not elimination.
Earlier in April this year, former Delta State Governor, Ifeanyi Okowa, elucidated the rationale behind his and incumbent Governor Sheriff Oborevwori’s defection from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC).
This significant political realignment, which also saw other PDP members in Delta State join the APC, was formally marked by a ceremony at the Cenotaph in Asaba.
Okowa’s central argument for the defection was that it served the “best interest of Delta State and its people.”
He framed the decision as a necessary “change of path for the common good,” emphasising that it was not motivated by personal gain but by the strategic need for Delta State to foster a stronger connection with the federal government in Abuja.
A key point of Okowa’s explanation revolved around access to resources and goodwill.
He highlighted that despite Delta State being a significant contributor to national resources, being in opposition for eight years during his governorship led to the state not benefiting much.
He explicitly stated that the move was to ensure Governor Oborevwori, whom he praised for “doing a lot” for the state, would receive “the needed support” from the federal level.
The “greater source of power, resources, and goodwill in Abuja” was presented as an essential link for the state’s development. This decision, he clarified, emerged from “stakeholders’ meetings,” indicating a collective agreement.
Okowa characterised the defection as “bold, strategic, patriotic, and well-intentioned.”
He called for unity among existing and new APC members in Delta State, advocating for them to “embrace each other and work with oneness of heart.”
His vision is for the APC to “truly dominate the politics in Delta State,” suggesting that with this move, there would effectively be “no other party.”
He also urged strong support for both the President and Governor Oborevwori, underscoring the political imperative of aligning with the ruling party at the federal level to achieve political dominance within the state.
Okowa’s justification hinges on the idea that political alignment with the federal government is a necessary strategy for a state to thrive, especially in terms of resource allocation and overall development.
While this justification is clearly articulated, whether it is seen as truly “patriotic” or merely opportunistic will depend on the individual’s political perspective and commitment to the ideal of multi-party democracy.
The prospect of a coalition of opposition parties aiming to oust President Bola Tinubu and the incumbent All Progressives Congress (APC) in Nigeria’s 2027 general election carries significant implications.
Dele Momodu, a prominent figure within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), suggests the APC is feeling apprehensive about the PDP’s potential to challenge their stronghold in 2027. He claims this is why the APC is allegedly attempting to fragment the PDP, indicating the ruling party perceives the PDP as a genuine threat and is actively working to weaken its opposition.
A unified opposition front could present a formidable challenge to the APC’s current dominance. This would likely compel the APC to re-evaluate its strategies and policies to broaden its appeal and counter the opposition’s momentum. The party might also contend with internal divisions and power struggles as various factions within its ranks jockey for influence and position. Such a scenario would undoubtedly invigorate the democratic process.
Conversely, any opposition coalition would undoubtedly face hurdles in maintaining unity and cohesion. Sustaining solidarity among diverse opposition parties and their varied interests will be paramount to their success. They would also need to put forward a credible and charismatic leader capable of galvanising support across Nigeria’s diverse regions and demographics. Many political commentators believe that for such a coalition to succeed, it must articulate clear policy alternatives to the APC’s current governance approach. These alternatives would need to resonate deeply with Nigerians’ aspirations for improved governance and robust economic development, offering a clear and compelling vision for the nation’s future.
Beyond the immediate electoral considerations, the very health of Nigeria’s democracy hinges on the vitality of its opposition. A strong and credible opposition acts as a crucial check on the power of the ruling party, holding it accountable and ensuring that diverse perspectives are represented in governance. When opposition parties are weakened through coercion or internal fragmentation, the democratic space shrinks, and the government faces fewer substantive challenges, potentially leading to less inclusive and less responsive governance. This erosion of checks and balances can have long-term detrimental effects on the quality of democracy.
To truly foster a vibrant, resilient, and authentically representative democracy within Nigeria, it is undeniably crucial for the nation’s political sphere to place an unequivocal emphasis on genuine ideological commitment and to accurately reflect the unadulterated will of its diverse citizenry. Political leaders across the entire spectrum must acknowledge, without equivocation, that a truly resilient and flourishing democracy thrives on inherent pluralism, actively encouraging a multitude of diverse voices to engage in meaningful and constructive dialogue, as opposed to simply enforcing a monolithic and often artificial compliance.
As profoundly underscored by the United Nations Development Programme, “democracy is not merely about the periodic act of holding elections; it encompasses, more comprehensively, the intrinsic quality of governance, the unwavering safeguarding of fundamental human rights, and the extent to which citizens can genuinely participate in decisions that affect their lives.”
In conclusion, the recent and highly publicised defections to the APC may indeed signal a deeply troubling trend in which the insidious hand of coercion is allowed to overpower and eclipse genuine political conviction.
As Nigeria inexorably gears up for a series of critical electoral cycles in the forthcoming years, it is absolutely imperative to assiduously cultivate a political climate that champions and rewards authentic popular support and genuine ideological alignment, completely free from any form of coercion or undue influence.
This steadfast and unwavering commitment to democratic principles will be absolutely essential not only for the continued advancement of democracy within Nigeria but also for the profound and enduring strengthening of the nation’s fragile yet vital political fabric.
The future health of Nigerian democracy hinges on this critical distinction between voluntary alignment and coerced compliance – a distinction that must be fiercely protected for the sake of the nation’s democratic future.
Shu’aibu Usman Leman is a former National Secretary of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ)
email: shuaibuusmanleman@yahoo.com
