AmanaOnline

Consensus Candidate Selection Will Damage Yobe State — We Call for an Open, Transparent, and Participatory Democratic Process.

We are citizens of Yobe State. We come from across the state — from Zone A, Zone B, and Zone C. We are from different communities, different ethnic groups, and different political backgrounds. What unites us is a shared commitment to democratic governance, a deep knowledge of our state, and a civic responsibility we can no longer discharge in silence.

We are writing because Yobe State is drifting toward a political crisis — and the instrument of that crisis is being presented, deceptively, as a solution. That instrument is called consensus. And we are here to say, plainly and on the record: consensus candidate selection, as currently being advocated in Yobe State’s political circles, does not produce unity. It produces resentment, marginalization, and conflict — suppressed only until it can no longer be contained.

We speak for every citizen of this state who believes that their voice, and the voice of their community, deserves to count in determining who governs them. And we speak at this moment because the window for influencing the integrity of this process is closing fast.

WHAT CONSENSUS REALLY MEANS

Let us be direct about what is meant when political leaders in Yobe State speak of using consensus to select candidates — from Governor down to State Assembly. Consensus, in this context, does not mean agreement reached through broad and genuine consultation. It means a decision quietly taken by a small, powerful circle and presented to everyone else as a fait accompli. It means that qualified, credible aspirants — men who have demonstrated capacity, integrity, and the ability to deliver — are eliminated before the process even begins, not because they lack merit, but because they lack the patronage of the inner circle making the decision.

This is the heart of the matter. Yobe State has credible aspirants for the governorship. Men of proven capacity and track record. Men who command genuine popular support across communities and zones. Consensus, as currently being designed, is not a neutral administrative tool. It is a mechanism to pre-determine the outcome — to clear the field before the competition begins. It substitutes the preferences of a few for the democratic rights of the many.

This we cannot accept. This we will not accept.

THE EVIDENCE FROM ACROSS NIGERIA: ENGINEERED CONSENSUS CONSISTENTLY FAILS

This is not theory. The Nigerian political landscape is scarred by the wreckage of engineered consensus arrangements that collapsed into bitter internal conflict, defections, legal battles, and electoral disaster.

In Zamfara State, a consensus arrangement that shut out significant internal party blocs led to a catastrophic implosion. The Supreme Court ultimately nullified election results and handed power to the opposition — a direct consequence of a party so fractured by imposed consensus that it could not defend its own mandate at the polls.

In Imo State, the engineering of consensus candidates within the APC created divisions so deep that factions of the same party worked openly against their own governorship candidate — producing years of political instability, protracted litigation, and governance paralysis that set the state back significantly.

In Rivers State, the attempt to impose consensus candidates triggered one of the most destructive internal political conflicts in Nigeria’s recent history splitting the party, paralysing governance, and producing open confrontations whose damaging consequences continue to unfold today.

In Oyo State, repeated consensus arrangements within the PDP were shattered by aggrieved factions who felt excluded, producing defections, court cases, and electoral setbacks that steadily eroded the party’s position across the state.

In Anambra State, cycles of engineered consensus within APGA have consistently produced trails of disgruntled aspirants who defected, sponsored opposition candidates, or actively undermined party nominees threatening the very unity the consensus was supposed to guarantee.

The pattern is consistent and unambiguous: consensus imposed from above does not silence ambition — it radicalizes it. Those excluded do not accept the outcome quietly. They go to court. They defect. They fund the opposition. They split the vote from within — at precisely the moment when unity is most needed. Yobe State is not immune to this pattern. Given its diversity and the political dynamics already visible on the ground, it may be among the most vulnerable to it.

WHY YOBE STATE CANNOT AFFORD THIS

Yobe State is a state of remarkable diversity — in its communities, zones, ethnic groups, and political traditions. That diversity demands a political process in which every part of the state can see itself fairly represented. Consensus candidate selection does the opposite. It concentrates power in the hands of a few. It pre-empts legitimate competition. It tells aspirants with genuine capacity and popular support that the game is rigged before it starts.

And when those aspirants — and the communities behind them — conclude that the process has been manipulated against them, they do not simply accept it. They resist. And that resistance, in a state with Yobe’s political complexity, carries consequences that extend well beyond any single election cycle.

The political establishments of Zamfara, Imo, Rivers, Oyo, and Anambra all believed that their consensus arrangements would hold. They did not. There is no reason to believe Yobe State will be the exception.

OUR DEMANDS

We call on all political parties operating in Yobe State, all political leaders at the state and federal levels, and all traditional, religious, and community leaders to stand firmly for the following:

One . Open and Transparent Candidate Selection: The process for selecting the governorship candidate and candidates for all other offices must be open, fair, and genuinely competitive. Every qualified aspirant, from every zone and every community, must have an equal and unimpeded opportunity to present themselves. The people of Yobe State — not a closed circle — must be the ultimate reference point.

Two.Merit Must Be the Measure: The next Governor of Yobe State must emerge through a process that tests and rewards capacity, integrity, and the ability to deliver. Yobe State has aspirants of that calibre. The selection process must be designed to identify and elevate them — not to eliminate them in favour of managed outcomes.

Three. Federal Leadership Must Stand for Democratic Integrity: We call on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima to use their authority to encourage open and participatory political processes in Yobe State. A state as strategically important as Yobe — in terms of security, development, and regional stability — deserves leadership that emerges from a legitimate, credible process. We ask the Presidency to be on the right side of this question.

A FINAL WORD

Yobe State stands at a crossroads. One path leads to an open, competitive, and credible process that produces a governor with genuine popular legitimacy and the political capital to govern effectively. The other path leads to a managed arrangement that will generate the resentment, fragmentation, and instability that has damaged state after state across Nigeria wherever it has been tried.

We have made our choice. We choose the democratic path. And we will continue to advocate for it — publicly, persistently, and without apology — until the process is secured.

Yobe State deserves leadership that is chosen, not imposed. We are here to make sure that distinction is not forgotten.

Issued by Concerned Citizens and Democrats of Yobe State.

April 27, 2026