As Sierra Leone gradually moves towards the 2028 general elections, the All People’s Congress (APC) faces an important political challenge: how to manage competition among its presidential aspirants without weakening the unity, internal cohesion and electoral prospects of the now somewhat fragile party.
The selection of a presidential flagbearer is one of the most consequential decisions any political party makes. It determines who will represent the party in the national contest, communicate its vision to voters and lead its campaign. However, when several aspirants seek the same position, differences in ambition, political strategy and support networks can create tensions that extend beyond the contest itself.
For the APC, therefore, the question is not simply who should become the next flagbearer. It is whether the party can organise a credible, transparent and peaceful selection process that allows aspirants to compete fairly while preserving the collective interests of the organisation.
Competition is a normal feature of democratic politics. Division, however, becomes a serious problem when disagreements over leadership turn into personal hostility, factional conflict and persistent disputes over the legitimacy of the outcome.
Political parties need competition to encourage new ideas, test leadership abilities and allow members to make informed choices. A flagbearer contest can provide an opportunity for aspirants to explain their policy positions, demonstrate their understanding of national challenges and convince delegates why they deserve the mandate.
Within the APC, presidential hopefuls may differ in their approaches to economic recovery, youth employment, education, healthcare, governance, national security and the management of public finances. These differences should provide the basis for meaningful political debate rather than become reasons for hostility.
The party’s challenge is to ensure that competition focuses on ideas, leadership records, qualifications and policy proposals instead of personal attacks and attempts to discredit fellow aspirants.
An aspirant should be able to criticise another candidate’s political record without portraying that candidate’s supporters as enemies of the party. Similarly, supporters should understand that loyalty to an individual does not automatically mean hostility towards other members of the APC.
The party must therefore distinguish healthy competition from destructive rivalry. The former can strengthen its democratic credentials; the latter can leave lasting divisions that become difficult to repair after the flagbearer has been selected.
One of the major risks facing political parties during leadership contests is the emergence of factions built around individual candidates. Supporters may begin to identify themselves primarily with their preferred aspirant rather than with the party’s collective objectives.
When this happens, disagreements can affect party meetings, internal communications, campaign planning and relationships among senior members. Some supporters may refuse to cooperate with rival camps, while others may question the legitimacy of the eventual winner.
Such divisions can become particularly damaging if aspirants and their supporters make allegations of favouritism, manipulation or procedural irregularities without presenting credible evidence or using established channels to seek redress.
The consequences may extend beyond the flagbearer election. A divided party may struggle to develop a common message, mobilise supporters and persuade undecided voters that it is prepared to manage national affairs collectively.
However, it would be inaccurate to assume that every disagreement within the APC necessarily amounts to a crisis. Different opinions are inevitable in a large political organisation. The real test is whether the party has effective institutions and leadership structures capable of managing those differences peacefully.
A credible flagbearer selection process begins with clear and consistently applied rules.
The APC leadership should ensure that the applicable party constitution, nomination requirements, delegate arrangements, voting procedures and dispute-resolution mechanisms are communicated clearly to all eligible aspirants and members.
Any uncertainty about eligibility, delegate accreditation or the conduct of the election can create suspicion and provide grounds for disagreement. Where questions arise, the party should address them promptly through its established procedures.
Transparency does not mean that every aspirant must agree with every decision. Rather, it means that decisions should be based on established rules, supported by verifiable records and open to legitimate review where necessary.
The party should also ensure that the relevant bodies responsible for administering the contest act impartially. If members believe that the rules are being applied differently to different candidates, confidence in the process may deteriorate.
Where complaints are justified, they should receive serious consideration. Where allegations are unsupported, the party should avoid allowing speculation to replace evidence.
Lastly, the credibility of the process will depend not only on the final result but also on whether participants believe that they were given a fair opportunity to compete.
Although the party leadership has a significant role to play, aspirants themselves must accept responsibility for the atmosphere surrounding the contest.
Those seeking the flagbearer position should demonstrate that leadership involves more than winning an internal election. It also requires respect for institutions, tolerance of disagreement and the ability to work with people who hold different views.
Aspirants should communicate their policies clearly, discourage abusive conduct among their supporters and avoid language that could unnecessarily inflame tensions.
They should also recognise that no candidate can claim ownership of the APC. The party is a political organisation with its own structures, constitution, history and membership. Aspirants seek a mandate from the party; they do not own the organisation simply because they command substantial support.
Equally important, candidates should be prepared to accept a credible outcome, while retaining the right to challenge genuine irregularities through the appropriate procedures.
Conceding defeat after a fair contest should not be interpreted as political weakness. It can demonstrate respect for the party’s institutions and an understanding that the organisation’s long-term interests extend beyond any individual’s ambition.
Those who win must also act responsibly. Victory should not become an opportunity to marginalise rival camps, punish critics or distribute party opportunities exclusively among loyalists.
A flagbearer who seeks broad support must recognise the contributions of members who supported other candidates during the contest. Supporters can either help maintain unity or make an already difficult contest more divisive.
Political loyalty often carries emotional significance, particularly when supporters have invested time, resources and personal relationships in a candidate’s campaign. Nevertheless, such investment should not justify insults, intimidation or the circulation of unverified allegations against competing aspirants.
Supporters should judge candidates by their proposals and records rather than by the hostility directed at their rivals.
The party’s senior members, regional organisers, youth leaders and women’s groups also have a role in promoting respectful engagement. They should discourage language that portrays internal competitors as traitors simply because they support a different candidate.
The media must equally exercise responsibility. Journalists should distinguish verified information from campaign claims, give relevant parties an opportunity to respond and avoid presenting factional allegations as established facts.
Political commentary should examine the issues at stake, the applicable rules and the consequences of competing strategies. It should not become a platform for personal attacks or the uncritical promotion of individual candidates.
The true test of the APC’s internal cohesion will come after the flagbearer has been chosen.
If the winner receives the mandate through a credible process, the party will need to establish a practical framework for bringing supporters of competing candidates into a common political effort.
This should involve meaningful consultation, fair participation in party structures and the development of a shared programme that reflects the party’s priorities. Reconciliation should be more than a public declaration made immediately after the contest.
At the same time, unity should not be confused with silence. Members must remain free to question decisions, debate policy and raise legitimate concerns without being labelled disloyal.
A strong political organisation is not necessarily one without disagreements. It is one capable of resolving disagreements through accepted procedures while maintaining respect for its institutions and members.
The APC should also examine lessons from previous internal contests, including the causes of past disagreements, the effectiveness of its dispute-resolution mechanisms and the measures needed to prevent similar problems from recurring.
Such an exercise could help the party develop a more predictable and trusted approach to leadership selection.
The APC’s flagbearer contest is an internal party matter, but its implications extend to the wider democratic process.
Political parties are central to representative democracy. Their ability to organise internal elections, manage leadership transitions and resolve disagreements peacefully can influence public confidence in democratic institutions.
As the country approaches the 2028 elections, citizens have reason to expect parties to present clear policies and demonstrate respect for democratic procedures.
For the APC, that means the flagbearer contest should provide an opportunity to discuss how the party intends to address unemployment, the cost of living, public accountability, education, healthcare and other national priorities.
The public should be able to assess competing aspirants on the substance of their proposals, their demonstrated records and the feasibility of their commitments.
Internal competition should therefore help the party clarify its policy direction rather than consume all its political energy in disputes over personalities.
The APC can manage a competitive flagbearer race without allowing it to become a source of lasting division, but unity will not happen automatically.
It will require transparent procedures, impartial administration, responsible candidates, disciplined supporters and a credible mechanism for resolving disputes. It will also require the eventual winner to recognise that leading the party means reaching beyond the group that supported the successful campaign.
For their part, defeated aspirants and their supporters should have confidence that their participation remains valuable to the organisation, provided the contest was conducted fairly and legitimate complaints were properly addressed.
The central question is whether every participant is prepared to place the party’s established rules and collective interests above personal ambition when the contest becomes difficult.
As Sierra Leone moves towards 2028, the APC’s challenge is not to eliminate competition but to manage it democratically.
The flagbearer contest should determine who leads the party into the next electoral battle. It should not determine whether the party remains capable of standing together afterwards.