A constitutional lawyer and public analyst, Justice Osai Ahiakwo, has criticised the promoters of the Rainbow Coalition, including the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, over what he described as violations of constitutional and party rules in their support for President Bola Tinubu's 2027 re-election.
Ahiakwo said the coalition's decision to mobilise support for Tinubu while some of its members belonged to political parties with their own presidential candidates raised serious questions about party discipline, internal democracy and constitutional compliance.
He expressed concerns in an article titled "When Political Loyalty Becomes a Casualty of Electoral Convenience," following the Rainbow Coalition presidential rally held at the Adokiye Amiesimaka Stadium, Port Harcourt, on November 7, 2026.
He particularly questioned the participation of Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, figures in the rally, despite the party having its own presidential candidate, Senator Sandy Ojang Onor.
The lawyer said that although political alliances and realignments were not inherently unconstitutional, political parties and their members were bound by their respective constitutions, rules and applicable electoral laws.
Citing Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of association, Ahiakwo noted that the right to political association did not exempt party members from obligations imposed by their parties' constitutions.
He also referenced the Supreme Court decisions in Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) and Isah Shuaibu Lau v. PDP & Ors. (2018), which, he said, reinforced the obligation of political parties to operate within established rules.
While acknowledging that the judgments did not directly determine the legality of cross-party coalitions, he argued that the arrangement must be backed by proper authorisation from the relevant organs of participating parties.
Ahiakwo questioned whether individual political leaders could commit their parties to presidential alliances without obtaining the approvals required by their respective constitutions.
He also challenged the apparent contradiction in which ordinary party members could face sanctions for anti-party activities while influential leaders participated in similar political arrangements without scrutiny.
The lawyer further warned that allowing parties to retain their presidential candidates while campaigning for another party's candidate could weaken party identity and leave supporters confused about their parties' actual electoral positions.
He said the coalition must be subjected to scrutiny over its authority, transparency and obligations to the electorate, rather than being treated as a convenient political arrangement driven by the ambitions of influential leaders.
"My concern is not that politicians should be denied the freedom to form alliances or pursue political realignments. It is that political convenience must not be allowed to erode institutional discipline, weaken party identity or confuse the electorate," he said.
He maintained that democratic cooperation must be built on transparent agreements, constitutional authority and clearly defined political obligations, stressing that democracy required consistency, accountability and respect for voters.