In any functioning democracy, political parties are more than just vehicles for winning general elections. Unfortunately, in Nigeria, and for many politicians, that is precisely what the parties are for. After the elections, it is typical for these politicians to disappear and only resurface during the next election cycle when they once again need the party platform to contest. Like Senator Ibrahim Lamido, they are also notorious for abandoning the funding of the party to the more committed members.
Even if the Electoral Act is amended to allow for independent candidacy, only very few politicians in Nigeria can win elections based solely on their personal popularity or strength. Again, for certain individuals such as Lamido, the structure of the All Progressives Congress (APC) was essential to his electoral success. He reportedly lost his polling unit, ward and local council due to his unpopularity. He was saved by the other local councils.
The question that then arises is: Why has Lamido turned against the APC, the party that generously gave him its platform to actualise his political ambitions? It is also a known fact that without Alhaji Isa Sadiq Achida, the Chairman of the APC Sokoto State Chapter, who introduced him to Senator Aliyu Magatakarda Wamakko and Governor Ahmed Aliyu, he wouldn’t have emerged as the candidate, let alone win the general election. It’s worth noting that Lamido hasn’t controverted this fact or disclosed the crime of those who in the first place made his election possible.
If Lamido has legitimate concerns, he has failed to present any concrete and coherent grievances and it’s not surprising that he has no case to pursue through the internal dispute resolution mechanisms available to him. This pattern of unconstructive behaviour does not suggest any principled disagreement, but rather the tantrum of a politician out of his depth. His numerous statements remain vague, emotionally charged, and devoid of actionable substance.
And assuming Lamido has and is dissatisfied with the manner his complaints have been handled by the various organs of the party, is attempting to factionalise the party his best option? But one thing is certain and that’s that his efforts at factionalising the party are a huge joke.
But why are Nigerian political parties unable to discipline their recalcitrant members, unlike the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa? Is it because most Nigerian political parties were formed around elections and have no history of long-term struggles? Or the fact that they tend to emerge, collapse, or mutate based on political convenience rather than any long-term vision which makes loyalty to parties often nonexistent and mostly transactional?
The ANC is definitely stronger and more cohesive than most Nigerian parties, which many believe has to do with the ANC’s deep historical roots as a liberation movement that fought against apartheid for decades. Many members of the party see it as more than a party, but as a historical institution.
Were it in South Africa, the ANC would have wasted no time recalling Lamido from the Senate. The ANC has proven that it has the capacity by recalling Presidents Thabo Mbeki in 2008 and Jacob Zuma in 2018 when their leadership threatened its unity and reputation. It’s also a known fact that members of the ANC unquestioningly fall in line with party decisions even when they vehemently disagree with such decisions, because of the obvious and clear consequences.
Nigerian parties, on the other hand, struggle to enforce discipline even when as in the case of Lamido his actions are a flagrant violation of the APC’s constitution, bad publicity for the party, and a distraction from the accomplishments of the Governor Ahmed Aliyu Sokoto administration.
According to Article 21(a)(iii) of the APC Constitution (2014, as amended), anti-party activities or actions that bring the party into disrepute are grounds for disciplinary action. Lamido’s conduct, especially his public statements against the party leadership, falls within this definition. The other offences against the party include anti-party activities, actions likely to bring the party into disrepute, and factionalism.
What is needed is an urgent enforcement of the party constitution, which has the necessary provisions needed for managing disagreements. The era of failing to resolve grievances within the party and putting the party in a bad light should be over. These political shenanigans must no longer be tolerated.
The question is why hasn’t the APC Sokoto State Chapter triggered this constitutional provision? First is the peaceful nature of Governor Aliyu, Senator Wamakko, and Isa Achida, the party chairman. This explains why, for a very long time, the party had largely ignored his antics. The other reason is that Lamido, despite his media activities, is not considered a political threat. His inability to gather meaningful support or command influence within the party structure is why the party has continued to see his actions as that of a political nuisance. His so-called “faction,” if one can call it that, has been operating mostly on the pages of some newspapers and new media platforms.
But even tolerable distractions have their limits, hence the recent “bomb” by the party chairman. The breaking point came when Lamido reportedly crossed the line by publicly insulting Wamakko, the very man whose political machinery made his election possible. The insult was a red line the party could no longer ignore. In Sokoto and across the APC, Wamakko is not just a political leader, he is an institution. Disparaging him was not merely an act of disrespect; but a direct assault on the party’s foundation in the state and a reckless provocation.
What makes Lamido’s case even more interesting is that in the Senate, he has failed to live up to the expectations of his constituents and the party. Many believe that his unprovoked attack on the party is a distraction from his failures. For instance, he is not known to have made any tangible contribution on the floor of the Senate or in any of the committees he belongs to. There is no doubt that his legislative record is uninspiring. Despite Nigeria facing serious health problems and Lamido chairing the committee with oversight functions over critical public health institutions, he has woefully failed to leverage his position to legislate for better primary healthcare or disease prevention measures. Rather than distinguishing himself as a serious lawmaker, he has settled into the role of a benchwarmer, wasting a golden opportunity to bring positive impact to his constituents.
According to the National Assembly’s legislative monitoring portal, Lamido has not sponsored a single bill since assuming office or moved any motion. His conduct and poor representation raise important questions about why political parties support candidates for elections. Based on his work experience, he looked like a good material, but like they say, the hood does not make the monk. Going forward, the APC and indeed all the other political parties must begin to prioritise character, competence, and party discipline when supporting candidates. The era of fielding candidates based purely on “hope” that their educational background and work experience will translate into performance must give way to a new standard rooted in loyalty, tested capacity, and a genuine desire to serve.
Lamido’s descent from political beneficiary to internal saboteur is both regrettable and instructive. It reflects the risks political parties face when individuals are elevated without the necessary grounding in ideology, loyalty, or political maturity.
The APC Sokoto State chapter has a responsibility to ensure that politics is not reduced to ambition without responsibility or power without purpose. The governor it supported is an example of a candidate who deserved the party’s support. Without party discipline, there will be utter lawlessness. It must wield the big stick, because only then can it preserve party unity, and the strength needed to lead both party and state into a more stable and prosperous future. Members must play by the rules.
Political parties are the institutional backbone of governance. They provide ideological direction, policy continuity, and the structure through which elected officials emerge and operate. When individuals exploit these platforms for personal advancement and then turn against them after securing office, they not only betray the party but also undermine the trust of the electorate. Unfortunately, Lamido is fast becoming a textbook example of this growing problem.
The mass media must avoid amplifying and elevating every political noise as a political crisis. Sensational coverage of intra-party conflict, devoid of critical interrogation, only encourages politicians like Lamido to use the press as a platform for personal battles. Similarly, citizens must demand more from Lamido, their representative and not just his presence in the media, but performance on the floor of the Senate and delivery of services to his constituencies.
Rightfully, while Lamido courts controversy, the APC-led administration of Governor Aliyu should remain focused on delivering its electoral promises. Thankfully, across the state, infrastructure projects are progressing, healthcare reforms are taking shape, and educational initiatives are being expanded.
