The political atmosphere in Kiru/Bebeji Federal Constituency has recently been dominated by the news of a “consensus” endorsement for Hon. Abdulmumin Jibrin Kofa. While his supporters celebrate this as a definitive victory, a cold, clinical assessment of the Electoral Act 2022 reveals a different reality: the current arrangement is legally precarious and teetering on the edge of collapse.
As a legal professional, I believe it is necessary to move beyond the political optics and examine the statutory hurdles and procedural flaws that make this “consensus” a house built on sand.
The Babale Suite “Coup” and Procedural Illiteracy
To those calling themselves “elders” or the “caucus,” it is time for a reality check. The recent gathering at Babale Suite, where individuals locked themselves in a hall to “elect” a sole candidate in the absolute absence of the other six contestants, was not a masterstroke of diplomacy, it was an exhibition of legal illiteracy.
A consensus is not reached by locking doors and excluding the very competitors whose written consent is required by law. By excluding the other six aspirants, this group has not only invalidated their own decision but has also fueled damaging allegations of corruption. Reports suggest that financial influence dictated the outcome, with allegations surfacing that participants provided account numbers, records of which were reportedly screenshotted and retained as evidence. If these allegations of a “pay-for-endorsement” scheme hold water, the entire process moves from being merely legally flawed to ethically bankrupt.
Read Also:
Kano YPP Calls for Mass Defection from ADC, PDP, APC
APC Chief of Staff, Mustapha Bala Dawaki, Receives Hero’s Welcome in Dawakin Kudu and Warawa
When It Comes to Capital Projects, Ganduje Stands Unmatched in the History of Kano
The Section 84(9) Statutory Hurdle
The law regarding consensus candidates is unambiguous. Under Section 84(9) of the Electoral Act 2022, a consensus is only valid if the party possesses the written, voluntary consent of every single candidate who purchased nomination forms.
In the case of Kiru/Bebeji, this is a non-negotiable wall. Currently, Hon. Kofa does not possess these withdrawals. In fact, five of the cleared aspirants have already documented their support for Hon. Muhammad Sanusi Majidadi Kiru through a formal collective agreement. Without Hon. Sanusi Kiru’s specific, written withdrawal, any proclamation of a “consensus candidate” is a legal fiction that will not survive a pre-election judicial challenge.
The Paradox of Hostility
There is also a profound contradiction in the current strategy. A viral video recently captured Hon. Kofa directing vitriol and public outbursts toward Hon. Sanusi Kiru. Legally, Hon. Kofa requires Kiru’s cooperation; politically, he has chosen to humiliate him.
One cannot insult their way to a voluntary consent. By castigating Sanusi Kiru and his closest political allies, the Kofa camp has burned the very bridges they must now cross. To expect a candidate to quietly sign away his political future after being publicly abused is a strategic absurdity.
A Legal Liability, Not a Candidate
The “elders” who orchestrated the Babale Suite agreement hold no standing in the eyes of the Electoral Act. The courts recognize statutes, not “selected stakeholders.”
As it stands, the five other aspirants have already aligned with Hon. Sanusi Majidadi. This means Hon. Kofa’s entire political future now hinges on a single signature that of a man he has publicly targeted. Without immediate, high-level intervention from figures like His Excellency, Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf, and a significant shift in tone toward Dr. Abdullahi Umar Ganduje and the Jagora of Kiru/Bebeji, Alh. Abubakar Mai-Mai, this candidacy remains a legal liability.
Conclusion
The clock is ticking. If Hon. Kofa does not obtain a formal, voluntary withdrawal from Hon. Sanusi Kiru through urgent mediation, he is walking directly into a legal trap. The result will be either a “lame duck” candidacy or the total disqualification of the party’s ticket.
In the theater of Nigerian politics, many believe that backroom “agreements” settle the matter. But in the theater of the law, the statute is king and the law does not favor those who ignore it for a fee.
