Enemies from within! Growing trend of anti-party activism

In this report, PHILIP IBITOYE examines the maladies of political parties, especially the issue of anti-party activities, general misconduct and indiscipline, as well as the constitutional framework of the parties on conflict resolution and mechanism for sanctioning erring members.

 LAST Wednesday, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) formally perfected its recent change of national leadership in Abuja. A former president of the Senate, Senator David Mark fully hit the ground running as the national chairman. He used the inauguration of the National working Committee (NCW) of the ADC to stir a fresh discourse and debate on the vexatious issue of anti-party activities. “I assure you that under my leadership, we shall be committed to full democratic practices and principles that abhor imposition and special privileges.  What constitutes an anti-party activity, given the trajectories of the political; parties, their key gladiators and the constitutional framework that set up the political partiers dating back to 1998? It would be recalled that a group of governors elected on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), known as the G5 shaped the path that led to the victory of the 2023 presidential election.

Angered by the fallouts of the presidential primaries of the PDP, the bloc mustered the necessary efforts to facilitate the emergence of the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Bola Tinubu. The then Governors Nyesom Wike, of Rivers State, Seyi Makinde (Oyo State), Samuel Ortom (Benue State), Okezie Ikpeazu (Abia State), and Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi (Enugu State) refused to support their party’s presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar—some of them even overtly or covertly backed rival candidates.

The actions of these powerful and influential governors ultimately led to the PDP losing the presidential election in their respective states and nationally. But for the party, this rebellion echoed past internal crises. In 2013, a coalition of PDP governors, known as the G7 Governors, objected to the emergence of President Goodluck Jonathan as the PDP’s presidential candidate. The governors—Rabiu Kwankwaso of Kano, Aliyu Wamakko of Sokoto, Rotimi Amaechi of Rivers, Babangida Aliyu of Niger, Murtala Nyako of Adamawa, Abdulfatah Ahmed of Kwara, and Sule Lamido of Jigawa—were led by former acting National Chairman of the PDP, Abubakar Kawu Baraje.

Five of the governors eventually defected to the All Progressives Congress (APC) as part of what became known as the nPDP faction. The others remained within the PDP, sabotaging it from within—much like the G5 Governors would a decade later. Many analysts believe the party’s defeat in the 2015 election can be traced back to this unresolved internal discord.

Both blocs of governors—the G7 of 2013 and the G5 of 2019—share a common thread: none of them faced consequences for their perceived anti-party activities. In fact, in May 2023, two months after the general elections, the National Working Committee (NWC) of the party instructed all party organs not to initiate disciplinary action against any member over anti-party conduct during the polls.

By contrast, the late Obafemi Awolowo-led Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) during the Second Republic was renowned for strict internal discipline and ideological consistency, especially in comparison to its contemporaries.

At the 13th National Executive Committee meeting of the UPN held in September 1982, for example, Oyo State Governor Dr Bola Ige and his deputy, Sunday Afolabi, were formally accused of anti-party conduct. Their offence? Allowing General Olusegun Obasanjo, viewed as an arch-foe of the UPN, to interfere in a disagreement between them—an intrusion deemed unacceptable. Ige and Afolabi were summoned to defend themselves. Although they were not punished, they apologised and reaffirmed their loyalty to the party.

A similar episode occurred earlier under the Awolowo-led Action Group (AG) in the First Republic. On May 19, 1962, the party’s Federal Executive Council hauled in Premier of the Western Region, Samuel Ladoke Akintola, for refusing to accept party supremacy and leadership authority.

According to Bola Ige’s memoir ‘People, Politics and Politicians of Nigeria’, Awolowo levelled anti-party charges against Akintola, who presented a defence. After more than six hours of debate, Akintola was found guilty. The case ultimately led to his departure from the AG and alliance with the Northern People’s Congress (NPC).

These examples reflect how seriously parties once treated breaches of discipline by senior officeholders. Today, however, political parties rarely wield such authority against powerful members.

In an interview with Sunday Tribune, Dr. Wasiu Olayimika Kewulere of the Department of History and Diplomatic Studies, Kwara State University (KWASU), said while cases of party discipline have historically reduced, the disciplinary mechanisms of first and second republics are still available in today’s political parties.

“The mechanisms that the likes of UPN and NPC used to enforce party discipline are still available today, but the extent of discipline in all areas of the Nigerian society has drastically reduced. The mehanisms are available but they’re not as effective as they used to be before now,” Kewulere said.

Political scientist Olawale Afolabi noted that anti-party activity is relative to each party, but that it generally refers to actions which contradict a party’s guiding principles, rules, and constitution. “There’s no broad definition, but one thing is certain about anything called anti-party activities—the offence must have contradicted the existing rules of the party,” he told Sunday Tribune.

Indeed, the constitutions of the PDP and other major parties in Nigeria—including the APC, African Democratic Congress (ADC), Labour Party (LP), and New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP)—all include provisions discouraging anti-party activities. While some do not clearly define such acts, one party describes them as “any conduct which is likely to embarrass or have an adverse effect on the party or bring the party into hatred, contempt, ridicule, or disrepute.”

What do political party constitutions say about anti-party activities?

Section 58(1)(e) of the PDP Constitution empowers the party to discipline any member who “engages in anti-party activities.” Although this term is not specifically defined, subsection (g) of the same section states that members who engage in the “unauthorised publicity of disputes within the Party or create a parallel Party organ at any level” are liable to sanctions. Additionally, Section 59(5) allows the National Executive Committee to expel any member for misconduct that brings, or is likely to bring, the party into disrepute.

However, analysts argue that the party has failed to enforce these provisions, allowing indiscipline to thrive. For instance, the G7 and G5 governors who publicly undermined the party’s electoral prospects were never sanctioned. More recently, the PDP’s 2023 presidential candidate was accused of actions viewed as undermining the party’s position, specifically, collaborating with opposition leaders to form a coalition that ultimately led to his defection to the ADC. Yet no disciplinary action was taken.

Similarly, Osun State Governor and PDP member Ademola Adeleke recently endorsed President Bola Tinubu of the APC for re-election—a move seemingly at odds with the PDP’s goal of unseating Tinubu. Despite this, the party has yet to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Adeleke, even though such conduct could fall under “anti-party activities” as per its constitution.

The ruling APC has also grappled with instances of perceived anti-party behaviour. For instance, Senator Ali Ndume of Borno South has faced calls to resign for his repeated criticism of the president and party leadership. While the APC removed him as senate chief whip in July 2024 for his remarks, it did not pursue suspension or expulsion—perhaps because his conduct did not clearly violate any specific constitutional provision. Article 21(A)(ii) of the APC Constitution defines anti-party activity as “any conduct which is likely to embarrass or have adverse effect on the party or bring the party into hatred, contempt, ridicule or disrepute.” Whether Ndume’s actions meet that threshold remains unclear.

Ridwan Oke, a Lagos-based lawyer and principal partner at Iris Attorneys LP, a Lagos-based law firm, noted in an interview with Sunday Tribune that parties have wide discretionary powers to regulate their members. “Any action of the party can always be hidden under their discretionary powers,” he explained.

Other parties such as the LP and NNPP have also faced internal divisions and allegations of anti-party activities. For example, the LP’s 2023 presidential candidate, Peter Obi, has been closely associated with an ADC-led coalition, contrary to the position of the LP faction recognised by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Article 20(1)(B)(2) of the LP Constitution states that members may be disciplined for “anti-party activities by conducting self in a manner likely to embarrass the Party or bring it into hatred, contempt, ridicule or disrepute.” Article 20(1)(B)(5) further prohibits “flouting the rulings or decisions of the Party” and “carrying out anti-party propaganda.” Despite earlier threats to expel Obi, the LP has yet to take formal action against him for remaining in the party while working with a rival platform.

As for the NNPP, accusations of anti-party activity surfaced last week when Hon. Abdulmumin Jibrin, the House of Representatives member for Kiru/Bebeji Federal Constituency in Kano State, visited President Tinubu. Article 17(2)(a) of the NNPP Constitution categorises “disloyalty, cross-carpeting, sabotage, disorderly behaviour at meetings, theft, fraud, and disrespect of party leadership” as acts of indiscipline. Nonetheless, the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Ladipo Johnson, said the meeting had been disclosed beforehand and was therefore not considered disloyal. “There’s nothing like that. If the party is informed, you cannot call it anti-party behaviour,” Johnson said.

READ ALSO: Activities of G5 PDP Governors in 2023 key to present day stability in Nigeria – Wike

Clearly, while political party constitutions in Nigeria include clauses to address anti-party conduct, enforcement is often selective, inconsistent, or absent altogether. This, according to analysts, has allowed indiscipline to fester, undermining internal party democracy.

Is political ideology a factor in anti-party activities?

In advanced democracies, it is rare to see high-profile politicians switching allegiance between parties. That’s largely because political parties are grounded in ideology, according to political analysts. In Nigeria, by contrast, it is common to see individuals serve as spokespersons for one candidate this week, and the next, represent a rival from another party. Curiously, such individuals often speak with equal conviction, raising questions about the role of ideology and loyalty in Nigerian politics. The frequency of such occurrences causes many to conclude that Nigerian politics usually has less to do with ideology, and more to do with self-interest.

In such a culture where ideology plays a minute role in the thinking of politicians, political analysts say that members of political parties have no binding loyalty to their platforms, causing anti-party activities to become the norm in Nigeria’s political space. Last week, the new ADC National Chairman, Mark, said the party would have zero tolerance for anti-party activities. “ADC will have zero tolerance for anti-party and other forms of indiscipline,” the former Senate President said at the inauguration of the party’s NWC.

Incidentally, Mark was still a member of the PDP less than two months ago when he joined other opposition leaders to find a unity platform as a vehicle to contest the 2027 general election. The party leadership said it was against the move, but the former senate president forged ahead without any consequences for his perceived anti-party actions until his resignation on June 27, 2025. While he said in his resignation letter that the PDP had become a shadow of its former self, he did not say the party he was moving to better represented his ideology. Other than the ADC’s widely stated goal of unseating the ruling party, it is still not clear what the party’s ideology or values are.

“It’s a simple case of not being ideologically grounded, a case of not respecting the supremacy of the party constitution, a case of having individuals who are lacking in principles hold leadership positions,” Afolabi said.

‘Party discipline is selective’

Another factor that has been blamed for the festering of anti-party activities is the selective nature of applying party discipline. Oke blamed the prevalence of perceived anti-party activities on the selective application of parties’ constitutions.

“Political parties are very selective and that’s why party discipline is not common in this country. The parties don’t encourage internal party democracy. So, when members misbehave, they have difficulty sanctioning them,” the lawyer said. “First of all, the process is selective. Those who fund the party do all kinds of things while the party looks on. When an ordinary member misbehaves, they start attempting to sanction.”

Afolabi agreed with this assessment, noting that powerful party members with financial means hold all the leverage over their party leadership and are less likely to be disciplined for perceived anti-party activities.

“Selective discipline in political parties boils down to power play because animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. In the Nigerian political system, it is he who pays the piper that dictates the tune. He who has the financial chest and wields political power has all the leverage,” the political analyst said.

He also noted that the lax enforcement of discipline against perceived anti-party activities according to party constitution weakens the democratic institutions in the country.

“If you are not following the ethos of democracy in your party—and political parties happen to be one of the pillars of democratic dispensations—how then would democracy be deepened? You cannot stand against the guiding principle of an ideology and then still claim you want the ideology to move forward. It is impossible,” Afolabi added.

On his part, Kewulere said today’s political parties can learn from past efforts to maintain party discipline by reorienting party members on their responsibility to the progress of the party based on their constitution and loosening the grip of powerful stakeholders over the affairs of their platforms.

“Political parties can try to make sure that their codes of conduct are more adhered to by members by trying to reorientate them and push to drastically diminish the influence of godfatherism on their platforms. These actions can help political parties to maintain discipline within their structures without internal crises,” the historian stated.

 

ALSO READ TOP STORIES FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE