Editorial | The Merit Newspaper
The gathering storm within the Lagos State chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC) is no longer a matter of speculation—it is unfolding in real time. With the quiet but decisive emergence of Deputy Governor Obafemi Hamzat as the preferred consensus candidate, the political chessboard has been set. Yet, the refusal of other aspirants to step aside has introduced a compelling subplot that could redefine the party’s internal democratic credentials.
At the heart of the unfolding drama is the weight of establishment backing. Dr Hamzat’s candidacy is not merely another ambition; it is one reinforced by the pillars of Lagos APC’s political architecture. The endorsement of Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu, the strategic support of Speaker Mudashiru Obasa, and the institutional influence of the Governance Advisory Council (GAC) led by Tajudeen Olusi form a formidable coalition.
More significantly, his reported presentation at the Presidential Villa and acceptance by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu signal what many would interpret as the final seal of authority in Lagos politics—a state long shaped by Tinubu’s enduring political machinery.
Ordinarily, such alignment would deter opposition within party ranks. But Lagos politics, as history has shown, is rarely that predictable.
The decision by Samuel Mawuyon Ajose (SMA) and Olajide Adediran (Jandor) to proceed with the purchase of nomination forms introduces a different narrative—one that challenges not just a candidate, but a process.
Ajose’s public reservations about the so-called consensus arrangement raise fundamental questions: Can a consensus truly be said to exist if all aspirants are not carried along? Is endorsement equivalent to agreement? And more importantly, does the current approach reflect the democratic ethos the APC claims to uphold?
These are not trivial concerns. Within Nigeria’s political framework, consensus is recognised as a legitimate pathway to candidate emergence—but only when it is inclusive, transparent, and broadly accepted. Anything short of that risks being perceived not as consensus, but as imposition.
READ ALSO:Abuja in Gridlock as Politicians Flood City for Supreme Court Verdict
Jandor’s insistence on remaining in the race further deepens this tension. His posture suggests not rebellion, but resistance—resistance to a process he and others may view as predetermined. In doing so, both he and Ajose are invoking an equally legitimate alternative: the direct primary.
This is where the real contest lies—not necessarily between individuals, but between two philosophies of political selection. On one hand is consensus, often praised for preserving party unity and reducing internal conflict. On the other is direct primary, which, though potentially divisive, offers a clearer expression of grassroots participation.
The APC in Lagos now finds itself at a delicate intersection of these competing ideals.
History offers a cautionary tale. The political trajectory of former Governor Akinwunmi Ambode remains a stark reminder of how internal party decisions can reshape careers and influence public perception. The echoes of that episode still linger, shaping how stakeholders interpret current developments.
What then should be made of Ajose and Jandor’s defiance—if it must be called that?
To frame it merely as daring the party leadership would be an oversimplification. Their actions may instead represent a demand for procedural legitimacy. In a system where consensus is expected to emerge organically, any hint of orchestration invites scrutiny.
For the APC, the stakes are high. Lagos is not just another state—it is the party’s political stronghold and a symbolic centre of its national dominance. How it manages this moment will send a powerful signal about its commitment to internal democracy ahead of future elections.
If the party insists on consensus, it must ensure that the process is genuinely consultative and not merely declarative. If it opts for direct primaries, it must be prepared for the unpredictability that comes with open competition.
Either way, the current situation presents an opportunity rather than a crisis—an opportunity to reinforce democratic norms within party structures and rebuild confidence among aspirants and supporters alike.
Ultimately, the question is not whether Ajose and Jandor are challenging authority. The more pertinent question is whether the APC is willing to subject its authority to the test of fairness.
As the primaries draw closer, one truth remains evident: unity imposed is fragile, but unity negotiated can endure.
