Nigeria’s democratic journey, which was reborn in 1999, has survived military rule, civil unrest, and economic instability. Yet today, it faces a more subtle but potentially more corrosive threat: political infidelity disguised as statesmanship.
Increasingly, opposition politicians, while retaining their party membership, now openly work for or endorse the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC)—an act of duplicity that is masqueraded as service to national unity or good governance.
This trend, embodied by some Nigerian politicians threatens to normalize disloyalty, undermine opposition strength, and ultimately erode the foundations of Nigeria’s multiparty democracy.
What makes this trend more alarming is its precedent; the 2023 general elections, where five serving governors of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), later known as the G-5 Governors, engaged in an unprecedented act of intra-party subversion.
Their rebellion not only weakened the PDP’s presidential bid but also opened the floodgates for an unexpected culture of internal betrayal and political double-dealing that now haunts the party and endangers Nigeria’s democratic stability.
The 2023 general election exposed the soft underbelly of the PDP. Five sitting PDP governors; Nyesom Wike (Rivers), Samuel Ortom (Benue), Okezie Ikpeazu (Abia), Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi (Enugu), and Seyi Makinde (Oyo), collectively known as the G-5, rebelled against the party’s presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar.
Their grouse was centered on the party’s alleged breach of zoning principles, with a demand for the resignation of then party chairman Iyorchia Ayu, a fellow northerner, to balance regional representation.
While their argument had moral and constitutional undertones, their actions were politically devastating.
While the actions of the G-5 Governors during the 2023 general elections were widely criticized as political betrayal and anti-party activity, a closer and more nuanced analysis revealed that their rebellion was not without moral and strategic justification.
Though it broke conventional norms of party loyalty and discipline, the stance taken by the G-5 was rooted in a compelling argument for fairness, equity, and national cohesion; principles that lie at the heart of Nigeria’s delicate federal balance.
To understand the inevitability of their decision, one must contextualize the political climate of the time, particularly the deep-rooted sentiment in Southern Nigeria that power must rotate after the North had held the presidency for eight uninterrupted years under President Muhammadu Buhari.
Nigeria is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious federation where the unwritten but widely respected principle of zoning; the rotation of top political offices across the six geopolitical regions has served as a stabilizing mechanism to prevent domination by any region. Though not codified in the Constitution, the zoning arrangement has become a moral pillar within major political parties and a tool for national inclusion.
In 1999, power began in the South (Olusegun Obasanjo), shifted to the North (Umaru Musa Yar’Adua), returned briefly to the South (Goodluck Jonathan), and then rotated back to the North again in 2015 (Muhammadu Buhari). By 2023, the North had completed another full term of eight years, and national consensus tilted strongly toward a Southern presidency.
Despite this historical context, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), which had historically championed zoning, chose Atiku Abubakar, a Northerner, as its presidential candidate for 2023. This decision sparked outrage among many stakeholders, particularly in the South, who viewed it as a betrayal of the party’s rotational principle.
The G-5 Governors, comprising four Southerners and one from the North Central, took the position that continuing with another Northern presidency would dangerously imbalance the federation and fuel regional marginalization. They demanded that the then PDP National Chairman, Dr. Iyorchia Ayu (also from the North Central), step down in the spirit of equity, arguing that it was morally untenable for both the party chairman and presidential candidate to come from the same region in such a diverse country. Their demand was ignored.
The G-5’s agitation was anchored on the belief that Nigeria’s peace and unity depend on inclusiveness. Allowing the North to retain power after eight years would have fueled southern discontent and undermined the federation’s fragile balance. In that context, their position was not merely political, but existential.
By resisting Atiku’s candidacy, the G-5 were not just fighting for their region, they were defending a long-standing national principle that has kept Nigeria from boiling over. Their rebellion, though unorthodox, was a signal to political elites that certain red lines, especially those around inclusivity, must not be crossed for the sake of power.
While critics saw their actions as anti-party, the G-5 justified their stance as pro-Nigeria. In a polity where party interests sometimes conflict with national unity, the Governors chose to prioritize the latter. For them, preserving the federation and ensuring equity outweighed blind obedience to party dictates.
Given the PDP’s refusal to yield to their calls for regional balance, the G-5’s rebellion became almost inevitable. It was a political consequence of a party elite tone-deaf to Nigeria’s complex sensitivities. The party not only ignored public sentiment but also dismissed internal dissent, leaving the Governors with limited options: either betray their conscience or resist the imposition.
Their subsequent actions, non-participation in the PDP presidential campaign, suspected alliance with opposition candidates, and political neutrality, were acts of protest born out of exclusion. While they fell short of formally defecting or resigning, their strategy was a calculated risk to express displeasure while maintaining institutional relevance.
It must be admitted At this juncture, that the G-5’s strategy was ethically controversial. Loyalty to party ideals and collective decision-making is vital for internal democracy. Yet, the reality of Nigeria’s volatile ethno-regional dynamics demands a big ethical lens, one that considers not only what is legal or traditional, but what is just and sustainable for the country.
Their rebellion exposed the cracks within Nigeria’s party system, the fragility of elite consensus, and the enduring relevance of zoning as a peace-building tool. It also forced national conversations on constitutionalizing power rotation or establishing clearer guidelines to prevent future crisis.
Now, let us take a cursory look at some of the damning consequences of that action that currently poses an existential threat to the PDP.
Firstly, this defiance set a troubling precedent which is the normalization of anti-party behavior without consequences. It sent a signal that political duplicity could be weaponized for personal gain, without regard for institutional stability or democratic ethics. Today, that precedent is rearing its head in more blatant forms.
Nyesom Wike, still a PDP member and also of the highest party organ; the National Executive Council (NEC), now serves as the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in President Tinubu’s APC government; a move widely seen as a political reward for his role in sabotaging his party in 2023.
Meanwhile, Ayodele Fayose, another senior PDP figure, has endorsed APC candidates in elections and campaigns under the guise of personal choice and political realism. These actions are not just isolated offenses, they are manifestations of a larger erosion of party loyalty and ideological commitment across Nigeria’s political landscape.
The G-5 rebellion marks the beginning of institutional indiscipline that has now grown more widespread. If a governor can sabotage his party’s presidential campaign without repercussion, and later be rewarded by the rival party, it sends a clear message that loyalty and commitment to party structure are optional.
Again, millions of Nigerians who voted based on party platforms now see those platforms as meaningless. When politicians campaign under one party and govern under the influence of another, it creates a credibility crisis and fuels political apathy such that Nigeria still witnesses till date. The message to voters is clear: their choices at the ballot box can be subverted by elite pacts behind closed doors.
With figures like Wike wielding executive power in an APC-led administration while still claiming PDP membership, there’s an inherent conflict of interest.
Policy coherence is also threatened, and accountability becomes murky. This dual allegiance blurs governance lines, weakens opposition oversight, and promotes an elite culture of cross-party patronage rather than policy-driven governance.
Its an incontrovertible fact that democracy without a principled opposition is only a democracy in name. The opposition’s ability to check executive power is compromised when key figures are entangled in personal deals with the ruling party. As this practice becomes normalized, the line between government and opposition is dangerously erased.
Nigeria’s legal framework is also silent or weak when it comes to penalizing acts of internal sabotage or dual political allegiance leading to such unethical practice that threatens the democractic evolution of the country and it’s gains so far. Instead of being sanctioned, party saboteurs are elevated, thereby, encouraging others to follow suit.
The unpleasant reality or better still a bitter pill for most Nigerians today is that most political parties in Nigeria, including the PDP, have become electoral vehicles for individuals to advance personal political course, not ideologically grounded institutions that can enforce discipline.
Also, the judiciary has often been reluctant or unable to decisively interpret such betrayals as constitutional violations.
Nigeria however, require an urgent and immediate Constitutional and Electoral Reforms as way forward in order to save the gains of the nation’s democracy while promoting ethical political practice.
To prevent further damage to Nigeria’s fragile democratic system, systemic reforms must be enacted.
The Nigerian Constitution should clearly define political loyalty and prohibit public officeholders from serving or supporting rival party administrations without formal resignation. Such violations should result in automatic loss of membership and, where applicable, their seat or appointment.
The Electoral Act should be amended to include strong anti-party clauses with enforceable sanctions, including disqualification from contesting future elections for a defined period if found guilty of internal sabotage. This will go a long way in promoting ethical political practice in Nigeria.
INEC must also be empowered to work with party disciplinary organs to monitor and enforce party membership ethics. Parties must adopt clear codes of conduct and implement internal conflict resolution mechanisms. A non-partisan judicial body could be tasked with investigating political misconduct, enforcing disciplinary measures, and protecting the sanctity of party platforms.
Civil society and voters must remain vigilant and use legal instruments to challenge unethical political behavior. The electorate must also be educated to reject politicians who violate public trust, regardless of personal popularity.
As extensively examined, it is crystal clear that the unholy alliance that began with the G-5’s rebellion against their party in 2023 is snowballing into a full-blown crisis for Nigeria’s democracy. What was once covert sabotage is now brazen collaboration with rival parties for self-interest. If allowed to continue unchecked, it will unravel over two decades of democratic development, reduce party politics to personality cults, and plunge the country into a state of democratic deception.
Though, their rebellion contributed to the PDP’s electoral misfortunes, it also served as a wake-up call for all political actors: no party, no candidate, and no ambition is greater than the collective peace and unity of the Nigerian federation
Nigeria must now decide; do we remain passive observers of this decay, or do we undertake the painful but necessary reforms to safeguard our democracy? History will not be kind to a generation that watched in silence as political treachery was being crowned as pragmatism.