IPAC's Delayed Reaction Comes at a High Cost

The Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC) has launched criticisms against the new Electoral Act 2026, but this move comes over a month after President Bola Ahmed Tinubu signed the legislation into law. The timing of this opposition is seen as unfortunate and raises significant questions regarding the responsibility and readiness of Nigeria's political parties.

During a recent engagement with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Yusuf Dantalle, the National Chairman of IPAC, detailed the council's concerns about several important aspects of the law. A primary point of contention is the mandated use of direct primaries for selecting candidates, which the parties argue should be managed internally. Additionally, IPAC criticized the requirement for political parties to present comprehensive membership records, including National Identification Numbers, within a strict timeline, labeling it as impractical and potentially exclusive.

While IPAC's concerns do have validity, especially regarding feasibility and inclusivity, the core issue undermining their position is the lateness of their reaction. Where was this united opposition during the legislative process, which included public consultations? Why did IPAC not mobilize resistance or suggest alterations when the bill was being debated and examined?

Attempting to contest established provisions at this late stage could jeopardize the integrity of the upcoming 2027 elections. As INEC progresses under the new legal framework, such belated protests may sow confusion, upset scheduling, and diminish public confidence. Continuous opposition from key political entities could also spawn unnecessary questions regarding the legitimacy of the electoral process, a situation Nigeria cannot afford to encounter.

This current scenario serves as an essential wake-up call for political factions. In a political climate increasingly criticized for alleged one-party supremacy, opposition groups need to adopt a more proactive stance rather than exhibiting passivity. It is disappointing for the public that IPAC, tasked with unifying and advocating for the interests of various parties, only raised its voice after pivotal decisions had been reached.

Nonetheless, the council's challenges merit further examination. Its outright opposition to direct primaries appears unsubstantiated. While it is acknowledged that the debate surrounding primary selection systems is multifaceted, promoting direct primaries was largely a reaction to well- documented abuses within the indirect system, where a limited number of delegates, often influenced by external pressures, decide outcomes.

Direct primaries promise greater engagement and enhanced internal democracy. By opening candidacy processes to a wider membership base, they lessen the influence of powerful financial backers and amplify the voices of grassroots members.

Therefore, support for maintaining direct primaries as a method for deepening democratic processes within parties is paramount. The concerns raised by IPAC seem less like a principled argument and more akin to reluctance regarding essential reforms.

When considering financial implications, political parties must acknowledge the realities of their operational capacities. The law does not obligate every party to participate in every election across all levels. Instead of diluting their limited resources chasing unrealistic goals, parties should strengthen their positions, leverage areas of expertise, and build credibility at a manageable pace. The presidency should not be the sole aspiration for every political setup, particularly for those lacking national frameworks.

IPAC’s objections about the submission of digital membership lists by specific deadlines carry some weight, particularly given the infrastructure challenges and disparities in access to registration resources. However, INEC's extension of the deadline from April 21 to May 10 reflects a readiness to accommodate genuine challenges. The best approach for political parties now is to minimize complaints and focus on fulfilling the requirements effectively.

At this juncture, what is required is constructive dialogue rather than noise. If IPAC believes specific provisions of the Act are fundamentally flawed, the appropriate route would be to seek judicial interpretation. However, any such actions should be undertaken with utmost caution, considering Nigeria's previous challenges with conflicting court rulings and electoral unrest. A repeat of such a situation would be detrimental for the nation.

The Electoral Act 2026, though not devoid of flaws, should have been addressed at the right time.

The immediate priority must now be to guarantee a smooth, credible, and orderly process leading up to 2027. Any actions that could disrupt this process, even if well-meaning, must be approached carefully. IPAC's late realization is a lesson in missed chances, and it should also catalyze a shift towards increased vigilance, accountability, and timely actionable engagement in future undertakings.