By Rayyanu Bala

Social media was awash yesterday with reports that Prof. Mohammed Sani Haruna had filed a case challenging the APC governorship primary election that produced Senator Ahmed Aliyu Wadada as the party’s candidate in Nasarawa State.
Although there was no immediate confirmation of the reported lawsuit, and the story appeared to be largely based on speculation, it is important to state that if Prof. Haruna is contemplating approaching the court over the conduct or outcome of the May 2026 APC governorship primary, the constitutional timeframe for instituting such a pre-election matter has already elapsed.
Prof. Haruna, by his background and exposure, should understand that politics is, among other things, a game of numbers. During elections, you win, you lose, and you move on. That is part of the political process, and it is a lesson that every newcomer to partisan politics must learn.
Senator Ahmed Aliyu Wadada has demonstrated this understanding throughout his political career. Political contests produce winners and losers, and the responsibility of every participant is to respect the rules of the game while pursuing legitimate avenues for redress when necessary.
In my last article, titled “What Does Non-Issuance of Certificate of Return Mean for Wadada?”, published on Monday in Nasarawa Eye, I argued that in Nigeria, hardly any election, whether a party primary or a general election, comes and goes without grievances. When we win, we are quick to describe the process as free and fair; when we lose, we question its credibility.
I also argued that those who believe the APC primary that produced Wadada was not free and fair should face the reality.
The APC governorship primary was held in May 2026, with the party’s primary election committee declaring Senator Ahmed Aliyu Wadada the winner with 195,285 votes. Prof. Mohammed Sani Haruna polled 5,844 votes. The primary was conducted across the state’s 147 electoral wards, although the committee acknowledged that voting did not take place in some wards because of isolated incidents. It also cancelled the result of one ward because of over-voting.
Following the declaration, Prof. Haruna publicly alleged irregularities in the conduct of the primary, including his claim that he was denied the opportunity to vote. The Nasarawa APC, however, defended the process and advised any aggrieved aspirant to approach the appropriate appeal committee with his grievances.
That is the proper way to handle an internal party dispute.
More importantly, Section 285(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), provides that a pre-election matter must be filed not later than 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, decision, or action complained of.
The APC primary was conducted and its result declared in May 2026. Therefore, to challenge the conduct or outcome of that primary under Section 285(9), the constitutionally prescribed 14-day window has long elapsed.
The question is not simply whether an aspirant believes he has a strong grievance.
There is also the question of the APC’s own internal dispute-resolution mechanisms.
Article 21.5(v) of the APC Constitution provides that a member who files an action in court against the party or any of its officers concerning the discharge of the party’s duties, without first exhausting the avenues of redress provided by the party’s Constitution, shall automatically stand expelled from the party upon filing the action. The provision further states that an appeal against such expulsion will not be entertained until the court action is withdrawn.
That provision makes the APC’s position clear: where an internal party dispute is involved, members are expected to exhaust the mechanisms provided by the party before resorting to litigation.
This is particularly relevant in the present circumstance.
Prof. Haruna has previously raised complaints about the conduct of the primary. The APC state leadership publicly advised him to take his grievances to the Primary Elections Appeal Committee.
There is, therefore, no reason for anyone to suggest that he had no avenue through which to ventilate his grievances.
Indeed, in August, Prof. Haruna said he remained in the APC in the interest of peace and stability. What Prof. Haruna needs now is patience and restraint.
Even though, based on all available parameters, Prof. Haruna has no grounds to take the APC to court over the May primary, it is important for him to understand that the APC’s constitutional provision on litigation should not be underestimated. The party has, on previous occasions, invoked Article 21.5(v) against members who took it to court without first exhausting internal remedies.
In May 2026, for example, the Anambra State chapter of the APC expelled 30 members after accusing them of taking the party to court without exhausting the party’s internal dispute-resolution mechanisms.
Regardless of the way one views the Anambra decision, it demonstrates that Article 21.5(v) of the APC Constitution is not decorative. The party has shown that it is prepared to invoke the provision.
The lesson for every APC member is, therefore, straightforward: membership of a political party comes with obligations. Members who voluntarily join the party are expected to respect its constitution and the mechanisms established for resolving internal disputes.
For Prof. Haruna, as I said earlier, patience and restraint should be his guides.