The All Progressives Congress has entered the most vulnerable stage of its 2027 preparation phase, and the warning flags are clearly clear. The party claims to have vetted 2,980 aspirants for presidential, governorship, Senate, House of Representatives, and state assembly positions, however the release of the screening report was postponed due to a large number of petitions.
That delay is significant since the APC has already set a strict primary timetable, with the presidential primary scheduled for May 23, 2026, under a new calendar designed to keep the party on track with the larger election cycle.
What the party is presenting as routine administrative caution is, in reality, an internal stress test. APC’s national publicity machinery moved quickly to dismiss talk of a postponement, calling such claims “false and misleading reports”, but the very need for that clarification shows how jittery the process has become.
Party insiders told Atlantic Post that some petitions were numerous enough to slow the clearance process, with one screening panel reportedly receiving 10 petitions that had to be judged on their merit. In a season where every ticket matters, petition handling has become a political weapon.
The Rivers dimension is especially sensitive. A party source flatly rejected claims that Governor Siminalayi Fubara had been disqualified, insisting, “Nooo! No governor has been booted out”, while also saying that some governors, including Hope Uzodimma, secured automatic clearance.
Fubara himself had already gone on record to dismiss defection rumours, saying, “I am a member of the All Progressives Congress (APC), and nothing has changed.”
That combination of denial and reassurance suggests APC is trying hard to keep its southern strongholds from becoming symbols of rejection or factional weakness.
Nowhere is the party’s internal contradiction clearer than Ogun East. The contest between Governor Dapo Abiodun and Senator Gbenga Daniel has turned into a battle over who really controls the APC structure and whether consensus is a principled settlement or merely a device for enforcing loyalty.
The Ogun State government accused Daniel of acting like “the rantings of a drowning politician” and condemned what it called “cheap propaganda and outright falsehood” after he criticised Abiodun’s record.
Daniel’s camp, however, insists he won the 2023 senatorial ticket in a delegate-based primary, claiming 450 votes out of 496. That competing narrative is not a side issue. It is a preview of the legal and political fights that could erupt if the party is seen to be imposing outcomes rather than managing competition.
Oyo State exhibits the same worry in a different way. A group of governorship candidates has stated that they will oppose any attempt to install a candidate ahead of the 2027 primary. Their message was plain. “Imposition is a betrayal of democracy,” they declared, adding, “We are not enemies of consensus.”
That distinction is essential. They do not reject consensus in principle. They reject a process that appears closed, manipulated, or purchased.
The aspirants also reaffirmed their devotion to President Bola Tinubu and the APC leadership, indicating that this is not a mutiny against the party. It is a demand to be treated as participants rather than observers.
The Oyo issue goes further than sentiment. One source told Atlantic Post that former Power Minister Adebayo Adelabu has issues and may not be cleared, while Sarafadeen Alli, already cleared, has party backing.
That is significant because it shows the clearance exercise is not simply a technical screening of qualifications. It is also a political sorting mechanism, and in that kind of process, the line between merit, loyalty and factional advantage can become dangerously thin.
The APC may insist that it is only cleaning up its primaries, but the pattern suggests something more combustible: a party struggling to separate discipline from exclusion.
Ondo State is the clearest case of APC retreating from consensus under pressure. Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa had earlier leaned towards consensus, but after resistance from stakeholders and aspirants, he agreed to direct primaries on May 15, 18 and 20, 2026, in line with the National Working Committee directive.
The state party said it would abide by the national leadership’s “internal democratic principles”, while the commissioner of police moved in with a show-of-force patrol and warned that the command would not tolerate political violence, thuggery, voter intimidation or cult-related disturbances.
When police begin signalling before primaries, it usually means the party’s internal politics has already spilled into public security.
Considered collectively, these developments reveal a ruling party attempting to juggle three competing instincts at the same time. First, it seeks consensus, which decreases public dispute and the possibility of lawsuit.
Second, it seeks control, which keeps hopefuls in check and protects incumbent power. Third, it wishes to appear democratic, as the Electoral Act and public opinion both penalise flagrant imposition.
The problem is that these inclinations frequently collide. As petitions pile up, local power brokers accuse one another of betrayal, and security forces are drawn into the fray, the language of togetherness begins to sound more like crisis management.
The deeper political truth is that APC is not only screening aspirants. It is screening loyalty, ambition and obedience. That makes the primaries more than an administrative exercise. They are a referendum on whether the ruling party can manage competition without tearing itself apart before 2027.
The screening report may still be released, and the petitions may still be settled, but the real story is already visible: APC’s road to 2027 is not a smooth conveyor belt. It is a battlefield of consensus, suspicion and competing claims to legitimacy.
