Opposition by name, APC by conduct: The Wike, Adeleke And Soludo question By PAUL IBE

“I have gathered that concerned members of the PDP and Accord are poised to approach the courts to seek judicial determination of the legality and constitutionality of chieftains of their respective parties being drafted into the ruling APC’s presidential campaign council, without the requisite authorisation of their parties.

That is the way to go.

The controversy should not be left to political rhetoric, selective interpretations of party constitutions or the whims of influential politicians. The courts should be invited to determine whether party leaders can lend their membership, influence and offices to the electoral ambitions of rival parties without appropriate constitutional authorisation, and whether such conduct violates party rules or infringes the rights of members.

There is an important distinction between an individual’s freedom of political association and the obligation to comply with the constitution of a political party to which that individual voluntarily belongs. No politician, however powerful, should enjoy immunity from obligations that remain binding on ordinary party members

Judicial intervention could help clarify the boundaries between legitimate political cooperation, authorised electoral alliances and conduct constituting anti-party activity. The PDP should clarify the constitutional basis of Wike’s participation in Tinubu’s campaign. Accord should explain Adeleke’s appointment in relation to its own presidential candidacy. APGA should equally clarify the institutional authority for Soludo’s participation.

These questions demand answers because party constitutions cannot remain binding on ordinary members while becoming optional for politically influential individuals.

Ultimately, this controversy extends beyond Wike, Adeleke and Soludo. It concerns the credibility of Nigeria’s political party system and the relationship between political organisations and citizens whose support they seek.”