Wike, Soludo, Adeleke: The Hypocrisy of Party Loyalty in Nigeria’s Politics
By Matthew Eloyi
Nigeria’s political class has once again exposed the contradictions at the heart of its multiparty democracy. The inclusion of Federal Capital Territory Minister Nyesom Wike, Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke and Anambra State Governor Chukwuma Soludo in the All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Campaign Council for the 2027 general election raises troubling questions about political loyalty, party discipline and the growing tendency to treat political parties as personal vehicles rather than institutions built around shared principles.
How can politicians retain their identities and influence within their respective parties while accepting formal responsibilities to help another party win the presidency? And if this is not anti-party politics, what exactly should Nigerians understand by the concept?
The appointments, as reported, are more than an exercise in political inclusiveness. Wike, a member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), has been assigned responsibility for coordinating President Bola Tinubu’s campaign in Rivers State and the Federal Capital Territory. Soludo, who won re-election as Anambra governor on the platform of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) in November 2025, is to coordinate the campaign in Anambra. Adeleke, re-elected Osun governor under the Accord Party, has been given a similar responsibility in his state.
These are not obscure politicians making casual statements of support. They are prominent office holders whose political relevance rests substantially on the parties through which they contested elections. Their decision to help the APC secure another presidential mandate therefore deserves more than a passing mention or a convenient description as political realignment. It demands scrutiny.
Political parties exist to organise competing interests, present alternative policy choices and mobilise citizens around candidates and programmes. They are not merely registration platforms that politicians use to win elections before pursuing whatever political arrangement best serves their immediate interests.
Yet the campaign appointments suggest that, for some influential Nigerian politicians, party affiliation can be separated from the most consequential electoral contest in the country.
Wike may remain associated with the PDP, Soludo with APGA and Adeleke with Accord, but their reported campaign assignments place them in the service of the APC’s presidential ambition. The contradiction is glaring: how can a politician be regarded as a committed member of one party while formally helping another party defeat its opponents at the presidential poll?
The issue is not whether politicians from different parties can cooperate. They can, and sometimes should. Nor is it whether a governor should work with a president from another party. That is a basic responsibility of governance.
The problem is the apparent transformation of routine intergovernmental cooperation into active presidential electioneering for a rival party.
There is a world of difference between cooperating with Tinubu to secure federal projects for Anambra, Osun or the FCT and accepting a role in a campaign designed to secure his re-election. The first may be defended as responsible governance. The second raises a direct question about political allegiance.
If party affiliation means anything, it must carry some obligations beyond the convenience of retaining a party card.
Wike: The PDP’s contradiction made visible
Wike’s participation is perhaps the most politically striking because of his prolonged and very public differences with the PDP leadership following the 2023 presidential election.
His relationship with Tinubu has demonstrated how political alliances can transcend party boundaries when personal interests and strategic calculations converge. Wike has defended the cross-party arrangement as a broad coalition and argued that politicians can support Tinubu without necessarily abandoning their parties.
That defence, however, does not resolve the fundamental contradiction.
A politician can disagree with his party’s leadership, criticise its candidate or advocate a change in its direction. But when he accepts a formal responsibility to mobilise support for a rival party’s presidential candidate, the matter moves beyond internal disagreement. It becomes a question of whether the politician is advancing his party’s electoral interests or undermining them.
The PDP’s own handling of Wike has been complicated by internal disputes and disciplinary proceedings. Reports in 2025 indicated that he and other prominent figures were expelled at a party convention over allegations including anti-party activity and disunity. The subsequent status of those decisions and any relevant legal proceedings must be considered before making a definitive claim about his membership.
Nevertheless, the political message is unmistakable: a party that cannot clearly define the obligations of its members, or enforce its rules consistently, risks becoming a loose association of powerful individuals rather than a coherent political organisation.
Wike’s defence of a rainbow coalition may sound pragmatic, but pragmatism cannot become a universal excuse for political inconsistency. If he believes the APC’s presidential project is the best option for Nigeria, Nigerians deserve to know why he continues to operate within the PDP political tradition rather than openly resolve the contradiction in his affiliation.
Soludo and the embarrassment for APGA
Soludo’s participation presents an equally uncomfortable dilemma for APGA.
He secured a second term as Anambra governor through a party that has spent years cultivating its identity and political base, particularly in the South-East. His electoral mandate was obtained under APGA, not the APC. Yet his reported role in coordinating Tinubu’s presidential campaign creates the impression that the party’s most prominent office holder is prepared to deploy his political influence towards the electoral success of a rival organisation.
What, then, is APGA’s independent political purpose?
If its governor can help the APC win the presidency, should its members be expected to campaign with equal enthusiasm for APGA candidates elsewhere? If the party believes Tinubu deserves another term, why should it not clearly communicate that position and explain the implications for its own presidential ambitions?
APGA cannot credibly demand unwavering loyalty from ordinary members while leaving the public to guess why its governor is helping another party’s presidential campaign.
There is also a wider danger. When the leaders of smaller parties lend their political structures and influence to the ruling party without a clearly explained institutional agreement, those parties risk being reduced to instruments of convenience. Their names may remain on ballot papers, but their capacity to offer a genuine political alternative becomes increasingly questionable.
Soludo may have reasons for supporting Tinubu, but those reasons should be articulated openly. The people of Anambra deserve to know whether this is an official APGA strategy, a personal political arrangement or a concession negotiated between influential politicians.
Silence will only deepen suspicions that party loyalty is being sacrificed at the altar of political expediency.
Adeleke and the Accord Party’s credibility
Adeleke’s reported role raises a similar question for the Accord Party.
He won re-election in Osun under Accord, relying on the party’s platform to secure another mandate. His participation in the APC presidential campaign therefore places him in a politically awkward position: he is helping a rival party pursue its most important electoral objective while continuing to draw political legitimacy from a different platform.
It is reasonable for a governor to maintain a cordial relationship with the president, irrespective of party differences. But it is difficult to understand why such cooperation must extend to a formal campaign role for the president’s party.
If Adeleke’s priority is securing federal support for Osun, he should explain why the state’s interests require him to coordinate the APC’s presidential campaign. Federal allocations, infrastructure cooperation and development partnerships should not be conditional on a governor becoming an electoral agent for the ruling party.
Otherwise, Nigerians may begin to suspect that access to the centre is being confused with political allegiance, and that the pursuit of state development is being used to justify arrangements whose wider implications for party competition remain unexplained.
Accord, too, must explain what this means for its identity and electoral future. A political party cannot build credibility by appearing to be committed to one platform during state elections and available to another during the presidential contest without accounting to its members and supporters.
If their parties approved it, what exactly do the parties stand for?
Defenders of the arrangement may point out that the PDP, APGA and Accord have expressed support for their respective politicians’ participation in the APC campaign council.
If these endorsements were formally granted by the appropriate party organs, they complicate any categorical allegation that the three politicians have violated their parties’ rules. A properly authorised political alliance is not automatically anti-party activity.
But this defence creates an even more uncomfortable question: what do these parties stand for if their prominent leaders are willing to help the ruling party retain the presidency?
If the PDP, APGA and Accord have effectively endorsed Tinubu’s re-election project, they owe Nigerians an explanation of how that position fits into their own political programmes, presidential ambitions and responsibilities to their supporters.
Are these parties offering a genuine alternative to the APC, or are their leaders simply negotiating individual political arrangements while retaining their existing labels?
The distinction matters. Political parties should not exist merely to provide platforms for ambitious politicians to secure office. They should offer citizens identifiable programmes, competing ideas and a basis for holding elected officials accountable.
When the leadership of a party endorses a rival party’s presidential campaign, it should explain the terms, objectives and limits of that arrangement. Was the decision taken by a properly constituted party organ? Does it cover only the presidential election, or does it extend to other contests? What happens if the party fields candidates against the APC in legislative or governorship elections?
These questions cannot be dismissed as unnecessary formalities. They are essential to determining whether the arrangement represents a coherent coalition or merely a collection of elite bargains.
Anti-party activity: Rules for the powerful, rules for everyone else?
The most damaging implication of this episode is the possibility of a double standard in party discipline.
Across Nigeria, ordinary party members are often accused of anti-party activity for supporting rival candidates, attending opponents’ rallies or refusing to follow the directives of party leaders. Some face suspension or expulsion, while others become targets of public denunciation.
Yet when powerful politicians undertake conduct that appears to conflict with their party’s electoral interests, the language changes. What might be condemned as betrayal when done by an ordinary member is rebranded as coalition-building when undertaken by a governor or minister.
That is precisely the kind of inconsistency that destroys confidence in political institutions.
If the parties involved have rules against supporting rival candidates, those rules should be applied fairly. If their constitutions permit cross-party campaigning under specified conditions, the exceptions should be documented and transparent. If the parties have formally approved the arrangement, their members should be told what the approval means for the parties’ own candidates and electoral ambitions.
Anti-party activity is ultimately a question of fact and applicable rules, not simply a label to be attached to political opponents. The relevant party constitutions, official resolutions and current membership status of the individuals must be examined before any definitive disciplinary conclusion is reached.
But political accountability should not wait for a disciplinary tribunal. The three politicians and their respective parties owe Nigerians a clear explanation of the apparent contradiction between their affiliations and their campaign responsibilities.
Is the APC building a coalition or exploiting political opportunism?
From the APC’s perspective, the inclusion of politicians from other parties may be presented as evidence of Tinubu’s broad appeal and the ruling party’s ability to attract influential figures beyond its membership.
But a coalition built around powerful individuals is not necessarily a coalition built around shared principles. It may simply reflect the calculations of politicians who believe that association with the president offers strategic advantages.
If the APC is confident in its record and its presidential candidate, it should be able to make its case to voters without turning prominent members of rival parties into campaign coordinators while those parties struggle to explain their own political positions.
The ruling party has every right to seek support across political lines. The question is whether the arrangement strengthens democratic competition or further blurs the distinction between the ruling party and its supposed alternatives.
A democracy needs opposition parties that can scrutinise the government, challenge its policies and present credible alternatives. When leading figures from those parties are enlisted to help the ruling party retain power, the opposition risks becoming weaker, more fragmented and less capable of holding the government accountable.
That may be politically advantageous to the APC, but it is not necessarily healthy for Nigeria’s democracy.
The appointments of Wike, Soludo and Adeleke should prompt a serious debate about what party membership means in Nigeria.
Political loyalty should not require blind obedience to party leaders. Members must be free to criticise their parties and advocate change. Nor should parties be prevented from forming transparent alliances where their rules permit them.
But a system in which politicians retain one party identity while formally working to secure another party’s presidential victory cannot be accepted without scrutiny. It invites the suspicion that party membership is being treated as a tactical convenience rather than a commitment to a political programme.
Wike, Soludo and Adeleke should explain why their campaign roles are consistent with their respective party affiliations. The PDP, APGA and Accord should publish or clarify the decisions authorising their participation and explain how the arrangement affects their own electoral ambitions.
If this is a legitimate coalition, let the terms be made public. If it is a departure from party rules, the relevant organs should address it. If the parties have decided that their presidential positions can be separated from their other electoral contests, they should explain the basis for that decision.
What should not be allowed to stand is the notion that political rules are binding on ordinary members but negotiable for the powerful.
Ultimately, the question is bigger than three politicians and one presidential campaign. It concerns whether Nigeria’s political parties are institutions with principles and enforceable rules, or temporary platforms whose identities can be set aside whenever influential members strike a more convenient bargain.
If campaigning for another party’s presidential candidate is not anti-party activity, then the PDP, APGA and Accord must explain where they draw the line. And if their leaders can cross that line with official approval, Nigerians deserve to know what, in practical terms, their party membership still means.