When understanding collides with misunderstanding, the collision needs to be understood. Is Senate President Bukola Saraki misunderstood? In other words, is he a victim of misunderstanding? Or is he the one who needs to demonstrate understanding? Does he have the understanding needed to avoid misunderstanding his situation?

Where is this train of thought going? Or where is it coming from? Well, Saraki prompted a contemplation of understanding and misunderstanding by his word choice on September 22 when he was docked by the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT). In an unexpected and unprocedural seizure of the moment, Saraki reportedly said to Tribunal Chairman Justice Danladi Umar: "Mr. Chairman, I just want to make this point for you to understand that, as a layman, I am puzzled why I should be before the tribunal." Saraki continued: "We are all before the world and not just before Nigeria and we ought to be seen how we conform to due process."

It is puzzling that Saraki claimed to be puzzled. Even more puzzling was a statement signed by him after his performance in the dock. He said: "I reiterate my belief that the only reason why I am going through this is because I am Senate President. If I were to be just a Senator, I doubt if anybody will be interested in the assets declaration form I filled over twelve years ago."

It is not understandable: Saraki doesn't understand that it is precisely because of his status as Senate President that he deserves whatever he is going through. The country certainly doesn't deserve a legislative commander that not only emerged controversially, but whose emergence was also coloured by a colourless subversion of his party's position.

Only a dysfunctional decoding of the concept of party supremacy could have encouraged the circumstances that brought him to the helm of affairs at the Senate, an ascendancy he actualised through an unapologetic defiance of his party's desire and decision. It is noteworthy that the same warped twist resulted in a queer combination and cohabitation at the helm of the Senate: Saraki of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), a party elected to power on the premise of progressivism, and Deputy Senate President Ike Enweremadu of the unprogressive Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Saraki made matters worse by subsequently rubbishing his party's list for Senate leadership posts.

It is understandable that a functional interpretation of party supremacy must be informed by the logic of supremacy. Supremacy is supreme. For the purpose of clarification, supremacy doesn't mean infallibility. So the party can err. It does not guarantee fairness. So the party can be unfair. The essence of party supremacy is its conclusive collective voice.

Saraki is a figure that emerged without an understanding of party supremacy, a development that has helped to fuel a crisis of individualism in the APC. In his rise to the preeminent legislative position, he demonstrated a misunderstanding of the party's "due process", and he did so without any care whether a watching world understood his lack of understanding. It is not understandable: Saraki now wants the public to understand so-called conformity to due process only in the context of his ongoing troubles. Obviously, he brought trouble upon himself and should understand that it may be harvest time for him.

It should be understood that this political drama is taking place on the stage of realpolitik. Saraki's anti-party manoeuvres that gave him the Senate crown were guided by realpolitik. His defenders and supporters have attributed his tribunal trial to the power and influence of alleged political antagonists, without understanding that Saraki doesn't have a monopoly on realpolitik.

Perhaps unfortunately for Saraki, there may be evidence of minuses exploitable by the opposing side. Considering the internal logic of party supremacy, it is understandable that internal politicking in a political party may give an advantage to certain interests such that they enjoy leadership influence. But this is no reason for the disadvantaged to bellyache to the point of belligerence and centrifugal conduct as manifested by Saraki in the pursuit of his desperate ambition to lead the Senate.

Clearly, Saraki wants his party to accept his contentious crowning as a fait accompli, which is not understandable. In building scenarios following his untidy enthronement, it would appear that Saraki didn't understand that APC supremos were likely to make moves to save party supremacy, and that they were likely to find their own way of doing so. He probably didn't understand the consequences of his rebellion and how far the party may be prepared to go in exploring a plurality of possibilities to checkmate him.

Saraki didn't understand that the early sign of his disruptive behaviour was likely to be seen as a danger to party supremacy by party hierarchs particularly. He didn't understand that his party would not encourage him to perform even more daring stunts to disgrace party supremacy by allowing him to get away with his initial misbehaviour. It is understandable if the party decides to follow the path that leads to restoration and reinforcement of party supremacy based on party discipline, party cohesion and party integrity.

The conflict is nothing short of a domestic war of sorts. It is not for the faint-hearted. On Saraki's side in particular, he will need a capacity to endure a war of attrition. Saraki must understand that in attrition warfare, the fundamental strategy is "to win a war by wearing down the enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses". He should understand what he is facing, or perhaps more aptly, the force of the forces ranged against him: "one can be said to pursue a strategy of attrition when one makes it the main goal to cause gradual attrition to the opponent eventually amounting to unacceptable or unsustainable levels for the opponent while limiting one's own gradual losses to acceptable and sustainable levels."

There is no doubt that Saraki has only himself to blame for being on the receiving end of attritional methods, and not without reasonable justification. When will Saraki understand that he is fighting a losing battle?