Double Standard or Political Amnesia? Why ADC can’t ignore zoning at the National level – John Egbe Agbonifo

The current hesitation within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) to openly embrace zoning at the national level—particularly for its 2027 presidential ticket—raises a fundamental question: what changed? If zoning remains acceptable and even necessary at the state level, as demonstrated by the party’s actions in Edo State, why is it suddenly being treated as controversial when applied to the presidency?
Zoning is not a new invention in Nigeria’s democratic journey; it is a foundational stabilizing mechanism that has guided political balance since the return to civilian rule in 1999. That year, following the annulment of the June 12 election and the assassination of Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola, political actors across party lines reached a consensus to pacify the South-West. Both leading candidates—Olusegun Obasanjo of the PDP and Samuel Oluyemi Falae—emerged from the same region. That decision was not accidental; it was deliberate, strategic, and necessary for national healing.
Fast forward to 2014, the newly formed All Progressives Congress again demonstrated political pragmatism by adopting consensus as a doctrine of necessity. The emergence of Muhammadu Buhari as the party’s flagbearer was not merely about popularity; it reflected a calculated reading of the national mood. That decision ultimately led to the defeat of an incumbent government—proving that zoning and consensus, when properly applied, can deliver both electoral victory and political legitimacy.
Given this history, the reluctance to discuss zoning within the ADC at the national level appears inconsistent and, at best, politically shortsighted. If zoning is acceptable in Edo State to ensure balance and inclusiveness, then rejecting it at the presidential level risks creating internal contradictions that could weaken the party ahead of a crucial election cycle.
The argument becomes even more compelling when viewed through the lens of equity and historical injustice. Since the end of the Nigerian Civil War, often associated with the Nigerian Civil War, the South-East has yet to produce a democratically elected president. Despite decades of participation and loyalty within major political platforms, particularly the PDP, the aspiration for an Igbo presidency remains unfulfilled. This perceived exclusion has contributed to rising agitations and the emergence of groups like the Indigenous People of Biafra, led by Nnamdi Kanu.
Ignoring these realities does not make them disappear; it deepens division. Zoning, therefore, is not merely a political convenience—it is a tool for national cohesion, inclusion, and long-term stability.
The events leading to the 2023 elections further reinforce this point. The exit of Peter Obi from the PDP, after failing to secure its presidential ticket, significantly altered Nigeria’s political landscape. His departure exposed internal fractures within the party and contributed to its weakened electoral performance. That moment serves as a cautionary tale: when legitimate demands for inclusion are ignored, the political consequences can be severe.
For the ADC, the path forward should be clear. If the party is serious about positioning itself as a credible alternative in 2027, it must avoid the pitfalls of inconsistency. Affirming zoning at all levels—including the presidency—would not only align with Nigeria’s democratic tradition but also strengthen internal unity and broaden national appeal.
For equity, fairness, and justice, the argument remains compelling: the South should be allowed to complete its remaining four years in the zoning cycle. Anything less risks reinforcing the very grievances that zoning was designed to address.
In the end, the issue is not whether zoning should be discussed—it is whether the ADC can afford not to.