By Rayyanu Bala

There is indeed something interesting surrounding the SDP in Nasarawa that deserves the attention of discerning minds. The issue concerns how the party conducts its primary election for the purpose of substituting candidates. Interestingly, the process headed in the same direction the beneficiaries of these substitutions had previously complained about in their former party, the APC. They claimed that the primaries conducted by the APC were marred by malpractice, yet they went on to perpetrate the same malpractices themselves in the SDP.
First, the primary election held at Ta’al Hotel to replace the governorship candidate was, in my view, fraudulent and inconsistent with the provisions of the 2026 Electoral Act. In particular, the required notice to INEC was not given within the stipulated period, which constitutes a violation of the relevant electoral provisions.
The reason the election that produced Mohammed Abubakar Adamu as the SDP candidate may proceed, in my view, is because he had no opposing aspirant, and no opportunity was given for anyone to contest against him. Otherwise, the outcome of the primary could have been challenged in court. This could potentially be described as an issue of locus standi, since a person seeking to challenge the validity of the primary must have the requisite legal standing to do so.
Mohammed Abubakar Adamu did not contest against any other aspirant in the primary. Therefore, unless a person with the requisite legal standing challenges the process before a competent court, the election may remain unchallenged.
I am not a lawyer, but I have read the relevant provisions of the 2026 Electoral Act. Based on my understanding, the process that produced Mohammed Abubakar Adamu as the SDP governorship candidate was flawed and manipulated, particularly because the statutory requirements for conducting the primary and notifying INEC were not complied with as argued by lawyer Obere A. Kana.
Apart from the governorship primary, only two days ago, one Aliyu Tala Safiyanu, who emerged as the SDP candidate for Doma North Constituency in the Nasarawa State House of Assembly, alleged that there was an attempt to conduct another primary in Lafia with the intention of replacing him. According to him, he neither withdrew his candidature nor authorised, consented to, or participated in any process to substitute his name.
A similar allegation has now been made by the SDP candidate for Lafia Central, Lawyer Abubakar Isa Kaura, who reportedly said that there was also a plan to replace him without his consent.
These are serious allegations that raise fundamental questions about internal democracy within the SDP.
You cannot substitute a candidate’s name without the candidate’s voluntary withdrawal from the candidature. Doing so amounts to fraudulent manipulation.
Yes, you cannot conduct a primary, allow someone to emerge as the candidate, and then turn around and replace that person through a process they did not authorise.
But if that fraudulent manipulation was wrong when it was allegedly happening in the APC, then it cannot suddenly become acceptable simply because it is now happening in the SDP. And you happened to be the beneficiary.
You cannot condemn a malpractice in one political party, reproduce the same malpractice in another party, and expect people not to question it.
Politics is not supposed to be about changing the colour of the jersey while retaining the same behaviour.
If the allegations coming from Doma North and Lafia Central are accurate, then the SDP leadership has an obligation to explain what is happening. Were fresh primaries actually conducted? If so, under what authority? Who authorised them? Were the original candidates informed? Did they withdraw? Were the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act followed?
And if the allegations are not accurate, the party should equally come out clearly and say so.
Political actors cannot campaign against electoral malpractice in the APC while tolerating same malpractices in the SDP. This is a double standard.
If you considered the APC’s primary election fraudulent, undemocratic, and unacceptable, then the same conduct should attract the same criticism in the SDP.
There is a saying that when you point one finger at another person, three fingers are pointing back at you.
The SDP has a responsibility to respond to these two candidates’ allegations and to demonstrate that the principles its members once demanded from the APC also apply to the SDP.
The issues are about whether the rules are respected.
And if the rules were wrong yesterday, they remain wrong today, regardless of which party is holding the pen.