Across Nigeria’s political landscape, defections have returned to the spotlight. The recent movement of the Governors of Enugu and Bayelsa into the All Progressives Congress (APC) has stirred excitement and debate across the nation. Supporters hailed their entry, critics voiced skepticism, and commentators quickly crowned them the new “leaders” of the APC in their respective states.

However, this popular assumption collapses under a single reading of the APC Constitution. It is a legacy misconception carried over from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), whose constitution explicitly assigned leadership roles to sitting Governors. The APC, on the other hand, operates on a different foundation — one that prioritizes party institutions over individual power.

The APC Constitution and State Leadership

The APC Constitution, amended in 2022, lays out a clear leadership structure at the state level. It designates the State Chairman as the chief executive officer of the party in each state. Under Article 12(B), the Chairman has the authority to direct, coordinate, and supervise all party activities; enforce national decisions; and maintain discipline within the state chapter.

The State Chairman presides over the State Executive Committee — the highest administrative body of the APC at the state level. Beneath this is the State Working Committee, which handles daily party affairs and reports directly to the Executive Committee. Notably, the Constitution makes no reference to the Governor within this structure — a deliberate omission signaling the APC’s commitment to institutional supremacy over personal influence.

Power in Practice vs. Power in Principle

While the APC Constitution is unambiguous, Nigerian politics often runs on unwritten customs. Governors, by virtue of their control over state resources and influence over appointments, naturally command significant political weight. This has fostered a de facto culture where Governors are seen as “leaders” of the party in their states — a tradition rooted in political convenience, not constitutional legitimacy.

The APC does allow Governors to engage at the national level through the Progressive Governors’ Forum (PGF), a voluntary platform for coordination and policy dialogue. Yet, this forum is not a constitutional organ of the party — merely a cooperative alliance, not a command structure.

Why the Distinction Matters

The ongoing confusion about who truly leads the party in each state has far-reaching consequences. When a Governor defects and is automatically hailed as the new “leader” of the party, it undermines internal democracy. Such assumptions weaken the authority of duly elected party officials, disrupt institutional discipline, and elevate personality over process.

The APC’s founding vision was to build a political organization that resisted the pitfalls of personality-driven leadership. By placing the State Chairman at the helm — and not the Governor — the framers sought to shield the party from the shifting whims of public officeholders. The goal was clear: to build a party governed by rules, not by rulers.

The Path Forward

As defections continue and new political figures join the APC, clarity is essential. Membership and influence do not equal leadership. The APC Constitution is explicit — the State Chairman leads the party in every state, under the supervision of the National Executive Committee and the National Working Committee. Governors remain vital stakeholders, but their authority begins and ends with government, not within the party’s hierarchy.

For Nigeria’s democracy to mature, political parties must learn to obey their own constitutions. Treating party laws as mere suggestions invites chaos and weakens internal systems. The APC has the framework for stability — but only if it upholds its own rules.

Ultimately, the strength of a political party should not rest on who controls state funds, but on those who have earned the trust of members through service, loyalty, and adherence to the constitution. That is the foundation of real democracy — not the supremacy of Governors, but the supremacy of institutions.