By Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko
Anyone who has been following international media coverage over the past week would have noticed that political parties in the United Kingdom have been busy holding their annual conferences. Parties such as the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, Reform UK and the Green Party have held conferences that attracted extensive media coverage.
These conferences demonstrate an important dimension of democratic practice: the participation of party members in debates about policies, programmes and political priorities. They provide platforms through which political parties articulate their positions, engage their members and seek to win the confidence of the electorate.
As a Nigerian who closely monitors the activities of political parties in my country, the extensive coverage provided by media organisations such as the BBC, CNN and, most importantly, Sky News has prompted me to ask a fundamental question: why have Nigerian political parties not developed similarly structured and regular conferences at which their members, elected representatives and leaders can congregate to debate policies, present their programmes and explain their ideological positions to the Nigerian electorate?
Nigeria operates a presidential system of government influenced substantially by the American model, while its political and constitutional development has also been influenced by the British parliamentary tradition. Yet, despite the enormous political importance of parties to our democracy, Nigerian political parties have generally not developed the culture of large, regular and publicly scrutinised party conferences that is evident in the United Kingdom.
The absence of such platforms raises questions about internal party democracy, transparency, accountability and the relationship between political parties and the wider Nigerian society.
Concerned that political parties appear, in many respects, to be disconnected from the wider society and that some of their internal affairs are conducted without sufficient public scrutiny, I decided to examine the constitutional provisions governing political parties and the responsibilities of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
INEC and Political Party Accountability
The Nigerian Constitution contains provisions relating to the financial accountability of political parties and the regulatory responsibilities of INEC. Among the relevant provisions are Sections 225 and 226 of the Constitution.
Section 225(5) provides:
«“The Commission shall have power to give directions to political parties regarding the books or records of financial transactions which they shall keep and, to examine all such books and records.”»
Section 226(1) further provides:
«“The Independent National Electoral Commission shall in every year prepare and submit to the National Assembly a report on the accounts and balance sheet of every political party.”»
Section 226(2) provides:
«“It shall be the duty of the Commission, in preparing its report under this section, to carry out such investigations as will enable it to form an opinion as to whether proper books of account and proper records have been kept by any political party, and if the Commission is of the opinion that proper books of accounts have not been kept by a political party, the Commission shall so report.”»
A reading of these constitutional provisions demonstrates that political parties are not intended to operate entirely outside the scrutiny of the electoral management system. Their financial records and accountability obligations are subject to constitutional and regulatory requirements.
This raises an important question: should the responsibility for political-party accountability be understood merely in terms of financial records, or should it also encourage a broader culture of internal democracy, transparency, policy development and engagement with citizens?
In my view, Nigerian political parties should be encouraged to organise regular conferences that bring together party members, elected representatives, political office holders, civil society organisations, policy experts, journalists and members of the wider public.
Such conferences could help bridge the gap between political parties and citizens, particularly those who are active members of the parties.
What Are Party Conferences?
Party conferences are multi-day events organised by political parties to discuss important political and policy issues, engage members, attract public attention and, in some cases, raise funds.
In the United Kingdom, party conferences can provide opportunities for members to debate policies and, depending on the party’s rules, vote on important party matters.
They are often extensive events involving keynote speeches by party leaders, policy discussions, specialist sessions, exhibitions, networking events and contributions from politicians, journalists, think tanks, trade unions and civil society organisations.
They therefore serve purposes beyond political speeches. They can become important forums for political education, policy development, internal debate and public engagement.
Why Should Nigeria Have Party Conferences?
Party conferences can create opportunities for citizens to understand what political parties stand for and what their elected representatives intend to achieve.
They can also provide opportunities for networking and the exchange of ideas. Political parties can bring together politicians, academics, business leaders, civil society representatives, journalists and ordinary party members to discuss national challenges.
Conferences can also provide an opportunity for policymakers to explain their thinking on major national issues. Ministers, legislators, party leaders and policy experts can participate in discussions and respond to questions from members and stakeholders.
Another important function is advocacy. Civil society organisations, professional associations and other interest groups can use party conferences to raise issues affecting their sectors and engage directly with political leaders.
Most importantly, party conferences can improve political education. When parties publicly articulate their programmes and policy priorities, voters are better positioned to understand the differences between them and to make informed decisions during elections.
Poor Governance of Nigerian Political Parties: How INEC and the Courts Contribute to Party Crises
A respected legal scholar and political analyst, Professor Sam Amadi, recently raised concerns about the roles of Nigeria’s electoral and judicial institutions in the continuing instability within political parties.
In a media interview, Professor Amadi reportedly identified inconsistent administrative decisions, weak regulatory clarity and conflicting judicial interpretations as factors contributing to internal party crises.
He said disputes within parties, including the African Democratic Congress (ADC), have increasingly escalated because of what he described as a lack of clear authority within INEC and the courts.
According to Professor Amadi, institutional uncertainty encourages factions within political parties to take disputes beyond internal party mechanisms instead of resolving them through established internal processes.
“INEC staffers provide conflicting decisions. Some lawyers will say it is right. So, basically, the lack of authoritativeness and due process and clear-minded clarity in INEC management of the parties incentivised disputants… to externalise and accelerate and deepen those divisions,” he said.
Professor Amadi further argued that matters that should ordinarily be dealt with through internal party structures have increasingly become prolonged legal and administrative battles, with political actors moving between INEC and the courts in search of favourable interpretations.
He also criticised aspects of judicial decision-making, arguing that some rulings have lacked the clarity necessary to bring disputes to a definitive conclusion.
“I think that the courts, through their weak interpretation, through their lack of clarity—look at the Supreme Court decision—‘oh, it’s an internal affair’—it was not authoritative,” he said.
Professor Amadi maintained that the combined effect of administrative uncertainty within INEC and what he characterised as judicial ambiguity has created opportunities for factions within political parties to pursue competing interpretations of the rules.
“Everybody thinks, ‘OK, we can get a better option from INEC,’” he added, arguing that such a mindset can encourage political actors to prolong disputes.
He further observed that the situation reflects what he considers a broader pattern of institutional uncertainty within Nigeria’s political environment.
“Clearly, there’s something different from the past… this time it’s different—total incoherence everywhere. So, the court, INEC, and the politicians will be held responsible,” he said.
He warned that unless INEC and the judiciary provide greater institutional clarity and consistency, internal party disputes could continue to generate prolonged legal and administrative battles.
These observations raise important questions about the institutional framework within which Nigerian political parties operate. Both INEC and the judiciary inevitably come under scrutiny whenever questions concerning the governance, internal democracy and institutional stability of political parties arise.
What Can Be Done?
The electoral management body, which is constitutionally entrusted with important responsibilities relating to political parties, should be encouraged to strengthen its regulatory oversight and insist on compliance with applicable constitutional and electoral requirements.
INEC should also encourage political parties to develop stronger mechanisms for internal democracy, transparency and accountability.
One way of achieving this could be through the institutionalisation of regular party conferences.
Nigerian political parties can learn from the experiences of political parties in the United Kingdom without necessarily attempting to reproduce the British system in its entirety.
Regular party conferences could provide Nigerian parties with platforms to present alternative programmes for nation-building, explain their ideological positions and demonstrate how their policies differ from those of other parties.
Such conferences would also create opportunities for the media to scrutinise party programmes and communicate them to voters.
In a democracy, citizens should not be expected to vote merely on the basis of personalities, ethnic affiliations, religious considerations or campaign rhetoric. They should have access to sufficient information about the policies and programmes of competing political parties.
Party conferences could therefore become important forums for information, education and public enlightenment.
Reining in the Judiciary
There is also a need for a broader national conversation about judicial accountability and institutional independence.
The National Assembly should consider whether existing mechanisms for judicial discipline, accountability and complaints require further strengthening. Any such reform, however, must preserve judicial independence while ensuring that judicial officers remain accountable for misconduct.
The suggestion of establishing an independent judicial ombudsman or strengthening an existing independent complaints mechanism deserves serious public discussion. Such an institution could provide an additional avenue for dealing with complaints about judicial conduct while ensuring that disciplinary processes remain transparent, professional and independent.
However, allegations that corruption or bribery motivates judicial officers to interfere improperly in political-party disputes should not be treated as established facts without evidence. Where such allegations arise, they should be investigated through appropriate constitutional and legal mechanisms.
Professor Sam Amadi’s observations nevertheless highlight the importance of ensuring that judicial decisions concerning political parties are clear, consistent and grounded in law.
The challenge is particularly complicated because members of the National Assembly are themselves politicians and therefore participants in the political system that judicial and electoral reforms seek to regulate. This creates an obvious institutional tension that any reform programme must acknowledge.
For this reason, Nigerians should demand clear and measurable commitments from candidates seeking elective office, particularly candidates seeking the offices of President and membership of the National Assembly.
Those seeking public office should be challenged to explain how they intend to strengthen INEC, improve judicial accountability and promote internal democracy within political parties.
The objective should be to build political parties that are transparent, internally democratic, policy-driven and capable of functioning as genuine platforms for political participation.
Nigeria’s democracy cannot become stronger if political parties remain weak institutions. Strong democratic institutions require political parties that are themselves accountable, transparent and responsive to their members and to the citizens they seek to govern.
The time has therefore come for Nigeria to take a closer look at the internal governance of its political parties and to ask whether these institutions are adequately serving the democratic purposes for which they exist.
EMMANUEL NNADOZIE ONWUBIKO is the founder of the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) and a former National Commissioner of the National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria.
