Abuja FileAnalysisCover StoryOpinionPerspectivePolitics

2027: Has the PDP Crawled Out of Its Challenges?

6 Mins read

By Taiwo Adisa

Sometimes last year, I was in a conversation with a former member of the National Working Committee (NWC) of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). It was in the thick of the steep cluelessness of the party’s leaders about the way out of the myriads of crises threatening its livelihood. The main opposition party had lost its bite, and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) was prowling around the horizon as the lone Trojan. The PDP was daily losing its members in the National Assembly to the ruling party, and it was almost certain that its name would soon be driven into oblivion.

When I expressed the view that the PDP was heading for the Golgotha, the former NWC member, who is from the North-Central geopolitical zone, refused to concur. He said, with a mark of assurance written all over his face: “PDP will not die!” But I insisted the party was already a living dead and that only a thin line separated its state at the time from the situation in the mortuary. The PDP chieftain told me that at a stage, stakeholders of the PDP would rise to rescue it from the brink and that we should expect a rejuvenated party before the 2027 polls.

Somehow, after that discussion, the situation within the party worsened. Apart from losing more members to the APC in the National Assembly, the party lost two governors earlier in the year. It was looking as if at a stage the whole of the PDP would just get swallowed by the APC. The governors of Delta and Akwa-Ibom States dropped the flags of their party and picked up that of the APC, on what many see as pure political excuses, and the dwindling numbers of the opposition parties, especially the PDP, were almost handing the APC a clear two-thirds majority in the Senate. As the political opposition remained disillusioned as to the way to go, I kept remembering the words of the party chieftain and NWC member who stated categorically that the PDP would not die! But when you kept seeing the hangman’s noose tightening around the party’s neck each passing day, the trust in those words would only continue to diminish.

But when the party rose from its 102nd NEC in Abuja on Monday, August 25, and announced it was zoning the 2027 presidency to the South and retaining the NWC positions as presently constituted, it appears to have lifted a heap off its own back. Even though, in line with the convoluted nature of politics, the decision is being seen by a segment of the party as another way of troubling the waters, for now, it may not be difficult to conclude that the PDP has arrived at the starting point of the 2027 race. How it will perform in the race is not what anyone can easily hazard as we speak, but it would appear that the party is seeking some solutions to its mountain of challenges.

At the 102 NEC, leaders of the PDP thought of a way out of a key existential problem facing the party-the direction of the 2027 presidential race-and it resolved to adopt the zoning it threw to the winds ahead of the 2023 election. The party announced it was ceding the presidential ticket to the South and also decided to retain the NWC position in the current state, after adopting the acting national chairman, Umar Iliya Damagum, as a substantive chairman. As innocuous and far between those decisions may appear, the party chieftains know they hold the key to certain doors that could lock the party out of relevance in the 2027 race. One of such issues is can be trusted by the contending tendencies in the party at this time. Who would not possibly rock the boat of the PDP Governors’ Forum (PDPGF) in the march towards the next general election? Remember that members of the 2015-2023 class of PDPGF trusted Dr. Iyorchia Ayu as chairman, and got their fingers burnt as they later became sworn enemies during electioneering. So, the party structures settled for Damagum, in ‘the devil you know is better than the angel you don’t know’ mode, and they also adopted the zoning formula, which some party leaders believed worked against it in 2023. To reduce tension and friction in the ranks of party members and leaders, the NEC also retained the NWC positions in the current state.

However, among some northern followers of the party, the decision is fast looking like a stamp on the tail of the viper, as members from the North-Central rose in defence of the right of the presidential aspiration of Dr. Gbenga Olawepo-Hashim, who has equally granted media interviews to insist that the zoning arrangement was a ploy to return President Bola Tinubu to office. While such sentiments have also been expressed by some others from the North, it appeared as if the party would stick by the adopted formula, as indications from within had emerged. Insiders in the party believed that the decision had a more general appeal than the 2023 scenario. The chairman of PDPGF, Senator Bala Mohammed, who is the governor of Bauchi State, had announced the cessation of his 2027 presidential aspiration as a sign of respect for the party’s decision, while some leaders like Chief Olabode George from the South have also hailed the decision.

Whatever the type of cloud that may form over the decision of the 102 NEC, some leaders of the party are thumping their chests for adopting “eggshell strategy” to douse the simmering tension that nearly snugged life out of the once octopodal PDP.

There are feelings within the party that it was able to achieve the “truce” reached on August 25 because of the decision of the PDPGF in May to launch a reconciliation bid through the eight-man National Reconciliation and Strategy Committee headed by the former Senate President Bukola Saraki in the aftermath of the failure to forge ahead with the party’s 99th NEC on the heels of the dangerous altercations. That was at the height of the threats of the party’s annihilation, following the defection of Delta and Akwa-Ibom governors. The hemorrhaging within the party’s fold continued amidst relentless battles over who occupies the national secretary post between Senator Sam Anyanwu, the South-East anointed claimant Honourable Sunday Udey-Okoye, and the PDPGF appointed Hon Setonji Koshoedo.

The PDPGF had, apparently sensing the prolonged bad blood could consume the party, mandated the Saraki-led committee to work out a resolution to pave the way for a rancour-free 99th NEC meeting to lead to a unifying National Convention. Other members of the committee include Governor Calab Muftwang of Plateau, Dauda Lawal of Zamfara, Peter Mbah of Enugu, former Abia State governor, Okezie Ikpeazu, former governor of Bayelsa State, Senator Seriake Dickson, former governor of Gombe State, Senator Ibrahim Dankwanbo, and former governor of Kano State, Mallam Ibrahim Shekarau.

The “eight wise men” who were mandated “to address contending issues within the party ahead of a successful hosting of the May 27, 2025, 99th NEC Meeting,” are today being credited with the behind-the-scenes moves that midwifed the “eggshell strategy,” providing strong outer defences and delicately managed interiors as the way forward. PDP leaders who credit the committee with the conclusions the party reached at the 102 NEC, said that its members approached tasks assigned to them with dedication and that they tackled the issues, including the resolution of the contentions around the 99th NEC; widespread consultation of stakeholders to engineer resolution of grievances and the need to ensure successful NEC meetings and rancour-free national convention with gusto. “From the beginning, the chairman of the committee, Dr. Abubakar Bukola Saraki, had maintained that the party should avoid moves that can cause anybody to resort to court actions to challenge the party,” a chieftain of the party had said.

Some of the silent tactics deployed by the committee were said to include the decision to meet with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to resolve the national secretary imbroglio and the series of consultations with stakeholders across the geopolitical zones. Somehow, it was determined that the party would avoid further court cases and rocking of established boats, and that a meeting held ahead of the August 25 meeting in Asokoro, Abuja, featuring Saraki, Bala Mohammed, and other stakeholders, had concluded that every member of the party stands the risk of losing it all if the crisis degenerates further. The common lingo among those stakeholders, as said by party chiefs, was ‘let us work together’, ‘let’s move forward’, and ‘let us forgive and forget’.

It was said that the resolution of that meeting permeated the happenings at the 102 NEC, leading to the widely circulated resolutions and the bid to commence the constitution amendment process.

In line with the feeling of deja vu among the PDPGF and members of the Saraki committee, the party has announced it was targeting a return of former President Goodluck Jonathan and the 2023 presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP), Mr. Peter Obi, back to its fold to give it a strong say in the 2027 race. While the party may not be near its all-conquering status of the old yet, it is also clear that emerging soundbites of discontent must be well rested to give it that ‘bark and bite’ capability. Even as the leaders celebrate the breakthrough at 102 NEC, they cannot just overlook the grumblings from within over the adoption of zoning and any such discontent. There are still cobwebs to be cleared and cannot be overlooked. The challenge the African Democratic Congress (ADC) poses to the ruling APC and opposition PDP is by no means flimsy. And onward to 2027, we may well be assured of a stiff three-horse race.

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Cover StoryNewsSports

Union Bank, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard, Others Back 5th Cycling Lagos

2 Mins read
Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard and other corporate organisations have thrown their weight behind the 5th Cycling Lagos,…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com