The Nation Newspaper

Category: Festus Eriye

  • Tinubu’s pardons: When mercy offends the self-righteous

    Tinubu’s pardons: When mercy offends the self-righteous

    When President Bola Tinubu announced clemency and pardons for 175 individuals – including posthumous gestures to figures like revered Nigerian nationalist Herbert Macaulay, General Mamman Vatsa, and the Ogoni Nine – the usual storm of outrage was triggered.

    Social media moralists, opposition opportunists, and even some well-meaning commentators cried foul. “Selective justice”, “outright injustice” some said; others dismissed it as “a political move.” Many scoffed at the symbolism, asking what good a pardon does for the dead. A popular joke online was “who will pardon the president?”

    As more details of the beneficiaries were released, critics lighted upon the case of one Maryam Sanda who, five years ago, was convicted of stabbing her husband Bilyaminu Bello, to death over a domestic dispute. This was clearly a tragedy that had torn immediate and extended families apart. The wounds are still raw as is clear from the emotional statement released by victim’s family denouncing the government’s action.

    For now, we may not know what made Sanda’s case so compelling that the committee chose her as a beneficiary given the gravity of her offence and the time spent so far in jail.

    But in a climate of intense cynicism and partisanship, the usual suspects have piled on the president as though he, personally, spent months wading through the 40,000-plus inmate population, just to favour a select group of convicts. Beyond mischief-making, the critics are yet to make a convincing case of how showing mercy to these people benefits Tinubu politically.

    Let’s be clear, this whole process is rooted in law – specifically, Section 175 of the 1999 Constitution, which grants the President the prerogative of mercy. The Presidential Advisory Committee on Prerogative of Mercy is chaired by the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi. It has as members eminent lawyers, jurists and representatives of the following: Nigeria Police Force, Nigerian Correctional Service (NCS), National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) and Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN).

    They reviewed nearly 300 cases, interviewed over 100 inmates, and made recommendations. The final list included 82 inmates granted clemency, 65 whose sentences were reduced, and seven death-row inmates whose sentences were commuted to life imprisonment.

    Among them were two living former convicts and 15 deceased ones who received posthumous pardons – including some whose names carry the weight of history: Macaulay, the nationalist branded seditionist by the British colonial government; Major General Vatsa, executed in 1986 on a treason charge; and the Ogoni Nine, whose execution under Sani Abacha remains one of the darkest moments in Nigeria’s history.

    It’s easy to forget that the prerogative of mercy exists precisely because justice, however well-intentioned, is never perfect. Courts can make mistakes. People have spent decades in jail only to have their convictions overturned. And even where guilt is established, punishment without redemption breeds bitterness, not rehabilitation.

    Clearly, imprisonment isn’t just about paying the price for crime it also aims at rehabilitating convicts. Little wonder the name Nigerian Prison Service (NPS) was changed to Nigerian Correctional Services (NCS) – highlighting this higher goal.

    Critics who call this president’s action a political stunt overlook a few basic realities. For one, the committee’s criteria were clear: age, terminal illness, exemplary conduct in prison, evidence of remorse, and recommendation by correctional officers. Many of the beneficiaries are poor, forgotten people – men and women who have spent time behind bars, often for minor offences, and who have long ceased to pose any threat to society. Some were convicted in their teens and have grown old behind bars. For them, clemency isn’t politics; it’s mercy long delayed.

    Periodic acts of mercy are not indulgences; they are necessary pressure valves in an overburdened justice system. It’s no coincidence that every democratic government since independence has exercised this power at one point or another. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo did. Umaru Yar’Adua did. Goodluck Jonathan did. Even Muhammadu Buhari – not exactly famous for sentimentality – did.

    In November 2002, Obasanjo pardoned 80 secessionist soldiers who fought against Nigeria during the 1967-1970 Civil War. On October 1, 2004, he showed mercy to 62 convicts. In March 2013, Jonathan pardoned his former boss, Diepreiye Alamieyeisegha, who had been jailed for two years for embezzling state funds. At the time of his arrest in September 2005, British Metropolitan police found about £1million in cash in his London home.

    All over the world presidential pardons are often controversial. Former U.S. presidents Bill Clinton and Joe Biden got many tongues clucking by granting clemency to relatives and dodgy characters. Donald Trump hasn’t been a slouch either in this department. Still, the tsunami-like criticism that has greeted Tinubu’s action just seems overdone.

    We can put that down to our selective outrage. We are perfectly fine when governors release prisoners during festive seasons, but become irate when the President does same on a larger scale. When our preferred political figures, “freedom fighters” and secessionist leaders are jailed, we demand mercy and beg for their release – even when their guilt is yet to be established in court or innocence proven. When the same mercy is extended to others, we sneer.

    Take the posthumous pardons. Some have dismissed them as empty symbolism – too little, too late. But it matters. Pardoning Herbert Macaulay or the Ogoni Nine isn’t about rewriting history; it’s about acknowledging it. It’s a way of saying: yes, the state once erred, and we recognise that injustice now. That has moral value. It’s an act of national memory – a small but significant gesture toward reconciliation.

    In a country where successive governments have buried their mistakes rather than confront them, such acts should be welcomed, not mocked. We cannot, on one hand, demand that Nigeria reckon with its colonial and military pasts, and on the other, scoff when it takes even a modest step toward that reckoning. That’s hypocrisy, plain and simple.

    Read Also: Tinubu seeks Senate’s confirmation of chairman, 28 commissioners for FCC 

    There’s also the criticism that some of the pardoned, like former House of Representatives member Farouk Lawan, don’t deserve mercy because their offences – in this case, bribery – represents the rot in our politics. Fair enough. But mercy was never designed for the innocent alone. The guilty, too, are human. If the law gives room for clemency, it’s because society recognises that punishment can correct but should not dehumanise.

    Those who worry that such gestures undermine deterrence misunderstand the balance between justice and mercy. Clemency doesn’t erase guilt; it acknowledges transformation. It says: “You have paid enough.” And that message, when applied transparently, strengthens rather than weakens the moral authority of the state.

    Of course, there’s always the danger of abuse – of political allies being rewarded under the guise of compassion. Nigeria has seen that before. But the answer to possible abuse is not to abandon mercy altogether. It is to ensure transparency, clear criteria, and a functional justice system that works fairly from the start.

    If anything, Tinubu’s move was balanced. It wasn’t a blanket amnesty. It mixed the symbolic with the practical, the famous with the forgotten. It reached backward into history and forward into the present. That’s not cynicism – that’s an attempt at a moral statement.

    We might also consider what kind of society we want to be. One obsessed with punishment, or one capable of compassion? For all our public displays of religiosity, we are quick to condemn and slow to forgive. The same people who chant “Lord have mercy” on Sundays become self-appointed hangmen by Monday. Yet no nation ever healed when obsessed with vengeance.

    In the end, the outrage over these pardons says more about us than about the President. We distrust power so deeply that we can no longer recognise sincerity when it appears. We assume every gesture has a hidden motive, every policy a sinister plot. That cynicism, understandable as it may be, sometimes blinds us to what is plainly good.

    Tinubu’s pardons will not fix Nigeria’s justice system. They won’t end overcrowded prisons or erase the wounds of the past. But they are a small reminder that mercy, too, has a place in governance.

  • What verdict on Mahmood Yakubu’s decade at INEC?

    What verdict on Mahmood Yakubu’s decade at INEC?

    Like most of his predecessors as chairman of Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, has been the recipient of acidic criticism over the handling of elections under his watch. He, more than most, having stepped into the saddle against the backdrop of unprecedented political change.

    He was appointed in 2015 by President Muhammadu Buhari who, along with his All Progressives Congress (APC), had pulled off the hitherto unthinkable feat of toppling an incumbent president. The losing Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) is yet to come to terms with its defeat, and spent the last ten years blaming the commission for its woes.

    But that’s understandable given that no one ever loses elections in Nigeria; it’s always down to INEC’s ‘rigging’. Even no-hoppers indulge in this national pastime of blaming the umpire. Way back in the Second Republic, the hapless chairman of the electoral body, retired Justice Victor Ovie-Whiskey, famously retorted that he would faint if he saw N1 million in cash. This was in reaction to unending allegations that he and his team had been bought off by the then ruling National Party of Nigeria (NPN).

    To that extent, no one should be too shocked by the Yakubu-bashing, nor swallow hook, line and sinker ever accusation against the election management team.

    This is not to say that the current commission, or its previous incarnations have delivered perfectly on their mandate. I doubt whether there’s any national institution for which that sort of generous claim can be made. While there’s much to be criticised, sometimes the criticism is way over the top; devoid of the generosity of spirit which acknowledges where progress has been made and innovations introduced.

    Over the last decade, our elections have evolved from the dark days when the primary beneficiary the 2007 election, late President Umaru Yar’Adua, shockingly admitted that the process that threw him up was fundamentally flawed. For all the attempts by the aggrieved to paint the chairman as a devil in professorial garb, no one can say that the Yakubu period ever plumbed the scandalous depths of 18 years ago.

    And that’s saying a lot, given that aside the general elections of 2019 and 2023 the commission under him also managed countless by-elections in that 10-year space. Virtually all parties – from the largest to fringe ones – at some point emerged enjoyed the feeling of being victors: in some instances in places where their triumph was considered an upset.

    A case in point is the narrow defeat of APC and its candidate, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, in Lagos, a place long considered his impenetrable fortress. In those instances, the victors would hail the commission to high heavens whilst the losers would curse them to the pits of hell.

    This October, the curtain is set to be drawn on Yakubu’s decade-long leadership. But we must not forget that his tenure was not just about elections, it also involved transforming the institution and reforming the way our polling processes are managed – getting them aligned with global best practices.

    Take away controversies about particular election outcomes and fair-minded persons cannot but admit that the Yakubu years have been transformative. Those with short memory forget that once upon a time ballot box-snatching and other Stone Age malpractices were consequential in determining electoral outcomes.

    Today, with the embrace of technology, much of those abuses have become redundant. So much so that on polling days citizens can now track emerging results from polling units up to ward level and beyond on INEC’s portal same day.

    One key achievement for which his time would be remembered is continuity and institutional stability. This is down to the fact that he’s the commission’s first chairman to have served two consecutive terms. In that period he oversaw the largest number of elections ever conducted in this country – two general elections, 19 governorship polls, hundreds of bye-elections, and three FCT council elections.

    To guarantee enduring institutional memory, he initiated Nigeria’s first Election Museum to preserve the nation’s democratic history. He regularised election dates, creating certainty and predictability. Improved investment in modernised election infrastructure resulted in the building of State Collation Centres across the federation and initiation of a new INEC Headquarters in Abuja.

    You cannot discuss Yakubu’s legacy without talking about the Commission’s embrace of technology. Two key items have become household names in political discourse. The Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) with fingerprint and facial recognition was introduced in place of the flawed manual processes. Equally, the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV) came into being, allowing Nigerians to view polling unit results in real time.

    Technology has also revolutionised voter registration through IVED and ABIS, eliminating 2.7 million fraudulent registrations. Digital portals for candidate nomination, party agent registration, observer accreditation, and media access are now available. In a first on the African continent, INEC has introduced the Artificial Intelligence Division, with an eye on the future of election management.

    Other achievements of the Yakubu tenure include expanding the Voter Roll by institutionalising Continuous Voter Registration (CVR). This has created year-round opportunities for people to register. Since the introduction in 2017, over 23 million new voters have been added.

    In the face of persistent calls for legal and regulatory reforms, the Commission worked with the National Assembly to deliver the landmark Electoral Act 2022, heralding electronic transmission of results and stricter party regulations.

    He would be remembered for making inclusion a core part of his agenda with the establishment of the Department of Gender & Inclusivity to give structure and voice to representation. Quota slots were reserved for women in senior management, breaking long-standing barriers.

    Read Also: Economic Reforms: No governor in Nigeria still borrows to pay salaries, says Akpabio

    Also introduced were assistive voting devices like Braille ballots and magnifying lenses. He created and implemented legal frameworks for Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) to vote, safeguarding rights even in times of crisis. To actually walk his talk, persons with disabilities were hired within INEC.

    Deepening of stakeholder engagement has been achieved through quarterly consultations with political parties, civil society, security agencies, and the media. A Code of Conduct for security personnel on election duty, ensuring professionalism in the field has been introduced. Partnerships with traditional rulers, faith leaders, and the National Peace Committee have contributed to a more peaceful electoral process.

    Yakubu’s impact has been felt in the area of electoral diplomacy and regional leadership. He revived and presided over ECONEC (ECOWAS Network of Electoral Commissions), positioning Nigeria as a hub of electoral thought leadership. He has also driven solidarity and peer-learning missions across West Africa, providing technical, material, and moral support to sister commissions.

    Demotivated staff can become a danger to electoral credibility as they become vulnerable to manipulation by politicians and parties. Understanding this, the INEC boss has addressed staff development and welfare by introducing merit-based promotions and gender quotas for directors, rewarding excellence; rolled out welfare packages: hazard allowances, bonuses, medical aid, and funeral grants; built a crèche for nursing mothers, supporting staff with young families; instituted Long Service Awards and Staff Recognition Nights.

    As he departs from a seat which many have dubbed a poisoned chalice, INEC’s low key, self-effacing chair can look back with pride at the technology-driven, reform-oriented, and people-focused institution he’s leaving behind. Perhaps with time he will get the credit he deserves for laying the foundation for deeper public trust in the integrity of our elections.

  • How to lose Nigeria’s 2027 elections

    How to lose Nigeria’s 2027 elections

    Recently, there’s been much hair-splitting over ‘early campaigning’ ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 general elections. Officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) have been moaning about how parties are violating the law by engaging in overt political activities which should only begin 150 days to polling day.

    But the commission is powerless to do anything about the infractions because of the silence of the law as to what constitutes campaign activity. All the same, evidence of intensifying politicking litter the landscape e.g. posters, billboards, rallies, interviews and press statements promoting one party or aspirant. Well-known figures are hopping from one television station to another putting themselves on display. It would be this way until polling day in 2027.

    If there’s anything I know about politics, it is that those who desire victory must know what’s important to voters. So, presumably, parties would be doing research and polling to find out the red button issues that matter to people.

    Read Also: First Lady clarifies National Library fundraiser, raises ₦20.4bn so far

    Some of these concerns are so obvious you don’t need much effort to identify them. Way back in early 1991, then United States President, George H. W. Bush, basking in the afterglow of leading allies to a crushing victory over Saddam Hussein and Iraq in the Gulf War, was riding a wave of popularity. 

    It was a display of America’s military might at its most glorious in Operation Desert Storm. Many assumed that having asserted himself as a hairy-chested Commander-in-Chief, folks back home would be sufficiently impressed and hand him a second term in the White House.

    But his Democratic Party challenger, a certain Bill Clinton, sussed out that as prestigious as it was to be seen as a global superpower, what ultimately mattered to the average man was how to navigate daily existence. His campaign team boiled down their focus to a pithy phrase: ‘It’s the economy, stupid! It was close, concise, and swept the little known mid-Western state governor to power in Washington. Bush’s war time popularity was of no use one year after.

    That wouldn’t be the first election where economics would be the deciding factor neither would it be the last. In the United Kingdom’s 1979 general elections, the Conservative Party played on high unemployment under Jim Callaghan’s Labour Party government. They hired the famous Saatchi & Saatchi advertising firm which came up with the killer line ‘Labour Isn’t Working’ imposed on an image of a snaking line of unemployed people.

    Voters agreed with the sentiment and swept the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, into power.

    But we’ve also seen instances where incumbent governments battling economic challenges prevailed due to the way they made their case to voters. Two years ago in Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, led his Justice and Development Party (AKP) to victory despite the country’s difficulties.

    The AKP’s strong showing left many Turks baffled as to how their nation’s dire economic crisis didn’t hurt the president’s electoral prospects. Analysts say it all came down to the way the ruling party handled its campaign. Its machine was very effective and succeeded in convincing voters that the incumbent would do a better job of managing the economy.

    The removal of fuel subsidies and implementation of foreign exchange reforms triggered a cost of living crisis which the Bola Tinubu administration has been battling to rein in over the last two years.

    I have always argued that the wise course for anyone looking to carry out painful reforms is to start early. With luck on their side, the results would start appearing and much of the initial pains would have receded at the point of the next election.

    Tinubu started early – declaring on the inauguration podium that ‘subsidy was gone.’ Fortunately for him, all his major rivals from former Vice President Atiku Abubakar to former Anambra State Governor, Peter Obi, all pledged to scrap the subsidies immediately they took office. While it’s been expedient politically for them to attack the incumbent on this issue, none has offered a credible alternative policy path.

    By starting early, the administration has made time its ally. Inflation is moderating and its other interventions are ensuring that present pains aren’t as grievous as past ones. It can do a better job of celebrating some of its populist measures like student loans. It can talk more about the ease with which businesses now access foreign exchange as opposed to the corruption-ridden processes in the past that made the Central Bank a toll gate of sorts.

    Of course, the opposition knows that their most potent attack is to amplify the pains arising from the reforms. But not all voters are gullible or simpleminded. They aren’t going to hand you power just because you stated the obvious. The question remains what would you have done differently.

    Another emerging theme in the early campaigning is the demonisation of foes. By returning to this tack, many politicians show they haven’t learnt much from their 2023 misadventures. Two years ago, Tinubu was painted as this fiend who was about to Islamise the country by the agency of the Muslim-Muslim ticket. He was caricatured as infirm, barely able to walk. Some even made out that a man who rose to be Treasurer of the multinational Mobil was barely literate.

    Despite the failure of those attacks, his rivals are back at it with renewed fervour. Take the example of the increasingly unhinged former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, who has made it his raison d’etre to topple Tinubu. 

    In his latest diatribe, he told his ally Atiku that the incumbent was plotting a life presidency modelled after the one perfected by Paul Biya in next door Cameroun. His claim comes at a time when Nigerians are being reminded of how Olusegun Obasanjo’s modest bid to secure an additional four years in office – the so-called Third Term Agenda – came a cropper.

    To now imagine that a Tinubu would set out to implement an even more ambitious take down of the constitution in a polarised environment such as ours beggars belief.

    Rather than sound convincing, the claim draws attention to the state of mind of the accusers and their motivation. It shows how out-of-touch some are. Is this the most important concern of the man in the street? Life presidency may be something that alarms certain of our idle elite but it’s hardly a vote winner for people who never heard of Paul Biya. 

    Berating Tinubu for not being the perfect democrat hardly matters to people who are quick to solicit military intervention against a regime some of them despise. These are the sorts of people who looked longingly at the recent chaos in Nepal wishing it was the lot of their country.

    Many Nigerians don’t care whether you are a dictator or democrat, so long as daily living isn’t stressful for them. If the economy keeps improving Tinubu would be re-elected – never mind the name-calling. His record would be evidence that he’s the safer pair of hands than those who want to seize the controls.

  • The INEC chairman as kingmaker

    The INEC chairman as kingmaker

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is like a lady who’s had too many botched body-enhancement procedures – the result being a terrible beauty for all to behold.

    A look at its history shows how past leaders thought they could resolve the organisation’s problems by cosmetic name change. From something called Electoral Commission of Nigeria (ECN) in the late 50s, it became the Federal Electoral Commission (FEC) which oversaw the federal and regional polls of 1964 and 1965.

    A succession of military regimes ensured there was no need for such a body until 1978 when the General Olusegun Obasanjo regime birthed a new Federal Electoral Commission (FEDECO) – the primary difference with its predecessor being the capital letter ‘O’ and a more musical sounding acronym.

    Along the line it would become the National Electoral Commission (NEC) which the late General Sani Abacha, as he dreamt of transmuting into a civilian president, renamed National Electoral Commission of Nigeria (NECON).

    Once day at the Aso Rock Presidential Villa, the stern, unsmiling dictator keeled over. His successor, General Abdulsalami Abubakar, who was charged with arranging a hurried exit for the junta, created what is now known as INEC. The innovation this time was to append the word ‘Independent’, hopefully warding off any future accusations of bias. We all know how that has played out.

    Read Also: First Lady congratulates Hilda Baci on second Guinness World record

    For as long as elections have been held in Nigeria, the electoral body has always found itself inserted into the heart of the drama. This isn’t because its officials are on the ballot but simply because politicians and the general public have come to believe that irrespective of what votes have been cast, winners are ultimately those favoured by the commission.

    Nothing in the constitution and other laws guiding the conduct of elections suggests that the INEC chairman has any extraordinary powers to decide election outcomes. Yet, a long, unbroken chain of losers are often quick to blame him for their woes. It’s the reason why there’s always heightened interest in whoever is going to be appointed to the chair.

    The commission is back in the news because the incumbent chairman, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu who was appointed by former President Muhammadu Buhari in October 2015 is coming to the end of his tenure. There’s already feverish speculation as to who his successor would be.

    Buba Galadima, a leading member of the opposition New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP), alleges that President Bola Tinubu is one the verge of appointing a recently retired Appeal Courts judge he called ‘notorious’ the next INEC chair.  He didn’t elaborate as to the reason for his notoriety only warning of civil unrest, were such an appointment to be made.

    More people have their ideas as to what can make the electoral body work. They are hardly structural, largely revolving around how to appoint the chairman. Some have suggested that the National Assembly takes over the responsibility as though the legislature isn’t populated by partisan politicians who aren’t more patriotic than those in the executive branch.

    A former Rivers State Governor, Celestine Omehia, has come up with the novel proposal that the chairman and National Commissioners be elected. The trouble with this suggestion is that it’s the same distrusted INEC that would handle the election, preparing the ground for further cries of rigging.

    An even more interesting intervention has come from Bashir Ahmad, a former aide of President Buhari, who bemoaned the fact that of 12 chairmen who run the electoral body, only two have been Northerners. He would probably love to see this ‘marginalisation’ redressed with the appointment of another individual from his region to follow Yakubu’s 10-year incumbency.

    What he failed to point out is that of the 10 chairmen from the South, all have been from the Southeast and South-South, none from the Southwest. It’s interesting that in a country where the zoning of political positions has become a fact of life, not much noise has been made about balancing things in this area.

    Imagine if Tinubu now decides to address this ‘injustice’ by appointing the next INEC chairman from this zone! The uproar would be heard at the ends of the earth. Cries of ‘Yorubanisation’ would drown out everything else. It would be said his plan to rig the 2027 polls had been inelegantly unveiled.

    It would appear that in appointing previous chairmen, governments have tried to balance unspoken political considerations with concerns about picking persons perceived as neutral and having integrity. So, they focused on academia, retired justices and civil servants. Sometimes they encountered individuals who had too much of a good thing like the late Prof Eme Awa. The Ibrahim Babangida junta ousted him for being too ‘rigid’, replacing him with someone who was more ‘flexible’. Read into that what you may!

    In some countries in the West, those who manage elections are not mild-mannered academics or grey-haired jurists – but people with track records of managing massive logistics operations. In the end that’s what’s involved in trying to deliver ballot paper and officials to the nether parts of Nigeria. These individuals are either former military officers or have worked in multinational organisations.

    I’m sure that in picking Yakubu’s successor this old pattern of looking to the academia and the judiciary may be repeated. Unfortunately, a cynical population has never been too impressed by INEC’s saintly figureheads. In a time of deep polarisation, not even an angel would suffice.

    The truth, however, is that INEC and its chairmen are only part of the problem. To be sure, on many occasions they messed up previous elections through late delivery of materials, or by sheer bungling of other areas of the polling arrangement.

    The trouble is, no matter how well-laid electoral plans are, there are politicians who would do anything to subvert the people’s will. Those who fund vote-buying, print fake ballots, organise mass thumb-printing, snatch ballot boxes, or instigate violence at polling stations are all politicians and their agents – not electoral commission officials.

    They have been at it since the First Republic when they would distribute salt and other items from house to house on the night before elections; they would still be pulling their old tricks come 2027. The perpetrators are to be found across the parties; never mind the shrill cries from certain wings of the political elite. Until there’s a national consensus to let the people’s will as expressed at the ballot prevail, elections would continue to be problematic in Nigeria irrespective of who’s running them.

    As damaging as violence and other forms of electoral malpractice may be, what’s worse is the deliberate efforts of certain politicians to demonise INEC and its officials when things don’t go their way. After a shellacking, their loss is because of electoral agency compromise, but whenever they win democracy is thriving in the land. It’s time to place the blame where it really belongs. 

  • 2027 coalitions and collisions

    2027 coalitions and collisions

    The undeclared kick-off of the 2027 general election campaign is something of a false start. It’s a start nonetheless – one laden with boasts, bluster and outright threats. To be fair, the stuff isn’t just coming from one direction: the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and those who would love to oust it, are giving as good as they get.

    Last weekend, the party’s high command descended on Uyo, the Akwa Ibom State capital, to formally receive Governor Umo Eno, who had finally executed his oft-threatened exit from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Everyone from Vice President Kashim Shettima to the party’s entire slate of governors was present.

    The state is home turf for Senate President Godswill Akpabio who was once its governor. Naturally, he was in his element celebrating the bloodless coup that further enfeebled the main opposition party. Akwa Ibom, like most states in the South-South zone, was until recently died-in-the-wool PDP territory. So, it was no mean feat that the entire structure of the governing party would dissolve overnight into enemy camp without resistance.

    While applauding Eno for making the right political choice, Akpabio suggested governors of Bayelsa and Rivers would soon follow. It wasn’t the appeal of a suitor; it was a statement delivered with the certainty of a prophet. Were his prophecy to be fulfilled, not too many would be surprised given that stranger things have been happening lately.

    The punch-drunk PDP didn’t have much of a response to the loss of another heavyweight from within its ranks. It was probably too preoccupied trying to identify which of many claimants was its rightful National Secretary to worry about the rising number of rats fleeing its listing ship.

    Read Also: Nigerian nurses urge greater investment in education, welfare, safer workplaces

    With its 10 governors, 36 senators and 118 members of the House of Representatives, it remains, on paper, the preeminent opposition party. But it’s a measure of how low its stock has sunk that some of its leading lights like former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and ex-Senate President David Mark are among sponsors of the yet-to-be-registered All Democratic Alliance (ADA). 

    By their actions and utterances, the two men have written off PDP as a viable vehicle for prosecuting the 2027 election. Atiku has been arguing for months that the only way President Bola Tinubu and APC can be defeated at the next polls is for all opposition platforms to come together. Mark has been less voluble but no less committed to the cause.

    Unfortunately for Atiku, his passion for defeating his one-time ally by all means necessary is not shared by PDP governors who have declared they won’t touch his coalition with a ten-foot pole. This is a significant disagreement which suggests that those who now control the party are unlikely to make the former VP flag bearer given he’s lost faith in the platform. It’s also a pointer that he could yet exit to actualise his ambitions elsewhere.

    Although it remains very much work in progress, what the coalition, or a likely new party, lacks in terms of membership or office holders, it makes up for with bluster and threats. In the face of every setback dealt the opposition by way of high profile defections to the ruling party, its boosters head for television talk shows to offload incendiary interviews.

    Former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, was at it again this week, regurgitating the same talking points. Apparently, he and his confederates had been conducting opinion polls which claim Tinubu had less than 10% approval in every corner of the country.

    For a man of his intellect and sophistication, this faith in his “scientific” polls is touching. Beyond offering comfort to he and his co-conspirators, El-Rufai should treat polls and pollsters with a healthy dose of caution. For one thing, their reputation isn’t what it used to be after they misfired badly in the 2016 Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump presidential contest.

    For months last year they predicted a tight race between Kamala Harris and Trump – only for Election Day to reveal a chasm in support between the two candidates. What’s more, today’s polls may be meaningless in two years when actual voting would be taking place.

    Truth is wise men don’t rush to conclusions on the strength of dodgy opinion polls – especially in a country as unpredictable as Nigeria. If tough economic conditions were the only determinant of electoral success or failure in these parts, then Tinubu wouldn’t be president given the state of the nation between January and February 2023.

    Another noisy figure in the nascent opposition platform is one-time Foreign Minister and former Jigawa State Governor, Sule Lamido. What can be gleaned from his regular utterances is his readiness to join any grouping that can remove the incumbent from office.

    While the focus of these individuals is clear, how to transit from dreaming to reality has become a giant obstacle. For all their hot air, the would-be coalition hasn’t done much to inspire confidence about their project within the political class and in the wider polity. They can’t even agree on how to proceed.

    At the onset, the Social Democratic Party (SDP) was touted as their platform of choice. El-Rufai announced his defection there with much fanfare. But their ardour for the arrangement cooled rapidly. The party’s National Secretary, Dr. Olu Agunloye, now describes his would-be collaborators as “confused people” who are only interested in taking over.

    Former presidential adviser turned critic, Hakeem Baba-Ahmed, has been equally unsparing, describing the coalition’s promoters as only concerned with being the face of project. Just as many had predicted, a collision of egos and ambitions is already playing out.

    Baba-Ahmed laments that even before getting out of the starting block, Nigeria’s latest set of would-be saviours have blown the opportunity of offering a credible challenge to the administration.

    “The most important thing they’re doing wrong is putting themselves forward,” he said on Arise TV. “It’s a coalition of a few politicians who hope that they can arrive at some understanding and then open the door and say, ‘ok, fellow Nigerians, we’ve agreed. This one will be this, and this one will be that, and you can now come in.’

    “It’s the wrong way about it. None of these people should lead or be seen in a position where they’re determining who should be in that coalition. They can work behind the scenes. What they need is a generational shift and a political shift away from who they are, what they’ve done, what they want to do, to a different set of Nigerians who can give Nigerians hope.

    “These are not the people who are saying, give us trust. Trust us again to solve the problems that the APC is creating. This is the wrong thing. And it’s very difficult to convince politicians that Nigerians can see through you. They don’t have faith that you actually represent a future, a different future from this government. You just want to replace President Tinubu.”

    Put differently, those offering change are as stale as they come, laden with all sorts of unattractive baggage. Virtually all have been active participants in making Nigeria what it is today. That’s why their project is having difficulty scaling the credibility hurdle.

    It’s often said you don’t get a second chance to make the first impression. What those who claim to be speaking for the coalition have succeeded in doing so far is projecting vengeance and retribution, as well as the promotion of the interests of a section of the country, as their agenda.

    Bitterness and outpouring of venom against the incumbent president is no alternative to providing voters an alternative governance vision. All we hear is “we must remove Tinubu.” If that’s all Atiku, El-Rufai and company have to offer, they are set for a rude collision with reality in the not-too distant future.

  • Why Nigeria’s political alliances rarely work

    Why Nigeria’s political alliances rarely work

    Every election season brings with it a familiar spectacle: hurried press conferences, tight handshakes, and grinning political heavyweights announcing yet another ‘historic alliance.’ The mood is often triumphant, the language dramatic, ‘a new dawn,’ they say, or ‘a coalition to rescue Nigeria.’

    But those who have followed our politics for any length of time know that these alliances are little more than stopgap arrangements. They are formed not out of ideological conviction, but out of necessity.

    We are told alliances represent a maturing democracy; that politicians are learning to collaborate, to compromise. But the truth is far less noble. These arrangements are not symbols of strength; they are confessions of weakness. Over the last one year, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar repeatedly warned the opposition that their only chance against President Bola Tinubu and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) was to pool resources.

    Time and again, these groupings collapse under the weight of their own contradictions. Yet they keep coming back, like a recurring fever. Why? Because our politics remains transactional, not transformational. The goal is not to build something enduring – it is simply to seize power, by any means necessary.

    There’s recurring failure, not because alliances are inherently bad, but here in Nigeria, they are never rooted in shared purpose. They are marriages of convenience, and like most such unions, they rarely end well.

    To understand the failure of political alliances in Nigeria, one must begin from the First Republic. In the years leading up to independence, regional and ethnic loyalties took precedence over any sense of national cohesion. The three dominant political parties – Northern People’s Congress (NPC), National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC), and Action Group (AG) – each drew their strength from specific regions and ethnic blocs. NPC was rooted in the Hausa-Fulani North, NCNC found its base in the Igbo-dominated East, while AG was primarily strong in the West.

    The political alliances of that era were more like tactical ceasefires than genuine partnerships. For example, after the 1959 federal elections, the NPC formed a coalition government with the NCNC. On paper, this seemed like a promising national partnership. In reality, it was a power-sharing deal forged by mutual suspicion and necessity, not by shared vision. The alliance was fraught with mistrust, and the ideological differences between the parties were never reconciled. Within a few years, the centre could no longer hold.

    The Action Group, meanwhile, was isolated from the central government and mired in internal crises. Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s imprisonment and the eventual declaration of a state of emergency in the Western Region only deepened the political fault lines. Regionalism continued to fester, and what little remained of national cohesion quickly disintegrated.

    By the mid-1960s, Nigeria had descended into chaos. The 1966 military coup – triggered in part by the failure of political leaders to manage alliances and ethnic rivalries – signalled the collapse of the First Republic. The alliances that were supposed to unite Nigeria had instead hastened its disintegration.

    When Nigeria returned to civil rule in 1979, the National Party of Nigeria (NPN), which emerged as the ruling party, entered into an alliance with the Nigerian People’s Party (NPP), led by Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe. This was meant to present a national front, but it quickly devolved into another transactional arrangement. The alliance collapsed within two years, marred by accusations of betrayal and marginalisation.

    Opposition parties like the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), led by Awolowo, offered a more ideologically coherent vision, but lacked national reach and viable allies. Once again, alliances failed to deliver any lasting unity or reform.

    The Third Republic, orchestrated by General Ibrahim Babangida, introduced two government-created parties—the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the National Republican Convention (NRC). This was an artificial alliance structure, an attempt to engineer na                                                                                                                                                tional consensus. But while the parties had ideological labels, in practice, they were filled with the same recycled elites.

    The most meaningful alliance of that era – the nationwide support for Chief MKO Abiola – was not elite-driven. It came from ordinary Nigerians across ethnic and religious lines. But when Abiola won the 1993 election, it was annulled. That fragile, people-powered alliance was destroyed by the military, and with it, the last vestige of hope for a genuine national coalition.

    When civilian rule returned in 1999, it was the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) that dominated the scene. The party functioned as a coalition of convenience – a “big tent” that brought together retired generals, political godfathers, and regional power brokers. It offered no ideological clarity but plenty of access to federal power. Zoning arrangements were designed to manage tensions, not resolve them.

    But like all alliances in Nigeria, PDP’s cohesion was surface-level. Behind the scenes, factions jostled for power, and internal betrayals were common. By 2013, the party’s internal contradictions led to a fatal fracture.

    Enter APC – a mega-alliance built from the merger of Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP, a faction of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), and disgruntled PDP defectors. It was hailed as a political masterstroke. But once again, this alliance was a tent that housed awkward bedfellows who had little in common beyond the termination of PDP rule.

    After APC won power in 2015, its internal contradictions exploded. Power blocs fought over appointments and influence. Bukola Saraki and the ‘New PDP’ wing revolted against the party’s leadership arrangements in the National Assembly. Joining forces with the main opposition, the former Kwara State governor was successfully installed as Senate President in a humiliating chapter for the new ruling party.

    Today, many of those PDP elements have since returned home or drifted to the latest ‘coalition’ – African Democratic Congress (ADC). This new contraption is not known for its ideological stripes but for their desperate desire to unseat President Bola Tinubu.

    Read Also: GITEX 2025: Over 300 foreign investors to storm Nigeria, says NITDA boss

    These alliances always fall apart for a host of reasons. For one, they are never built to last.

    Personal ambition trumps collective vision. Everyone in the alliance wants to be president – or at least kingmaker. Once the power-sharing deals start breaking down, so does the alliance. There’s already talk of ADC being ex-VP Atiku last hope of becoming president. For their part, supporters of Peter Obi insist that their man be handed the ticket.

    Ethnic and regional distrust runs deep. Alliances in Nigeria are fragile truces between suspicious partners. Each region watches the other, expecting betrayal. There have been reports that the plot to create ADC began barely six months into Tinubu’s tenure. Shorn of all pretension, this new coalition was largely born of the frustrations of a section of the Northern political elite with the Tinubu administration.

    Early in its life it was already facing resistance from a so-called League of Northern Democrats – which has since dissolved into the bowels of ADC. Scratch the surface and you’ll find that the only place where the party is gaining traction is above the Niger. 

    There is no ideology. Nigerian parties do not disagree on principles – they just disagree on whose turn it is to ‘chop.’ Without a common vision, there is nothing to hold an alliance together.

    Alliances are election tools, not governance plans. Once power is secured, the glue melts. Positions are fought over, factions splinter, and voters are forgotten.

    Still, alliances remain a staple of Nigerian politics. Why? They are a signal of desperation. When a politician can’t win alone, they form an alliance. It’s not a power move; it’s a survival tactic.

    Political alliances in Nigeria are not instruments of national progress – they are tools of political survival. They rarely work, because they were never built to work. They are formed in panic, driven by ambition, and destroyed by greed.

    Until our politics is grounded in ideology, integrity, and genuine accountability, alliances will remain what they have always been: a mirage sold to a weary public every four years. Let’s stop being impressed by coalitions formed in hotel ballrooms. Let us stop mistaking handshakes for hope.

  • The Muhammadu Buhari legacy

    The Muhammadu Buhari legacy

    It is fashionable for Nigerian political official holders to invest time and resources on edifices and infrastructure they grandiosely dub ‘legacy projects.’ Their hope is that future generations would remember them positively for the brick and mortar monstrosities they left behind.

    Ancient Greece and Rome also had grand edifices which are just ruins today. What has endured from those civilisations are the idea of democracy and the concept of republican rule.

    We see in the Muhammadu Buhari transition, that the greatest legacy may be the noble character of an individual that a nation can look to as a compass.

    Amid the deluge of tributes to the late president, a recurring reference has been to his integrity and aversion to corruption. This is rare in a nation when public office is a tried and tested route to unbelievable wealth; where occupants of powerful positions quickly acquire outsize egos in addition to wealth of questionable origin.

    Despite spending the better part of his working life in public service – occupying some of the most ‘juicy’ positions in government – he managed to remain ‘poor’ in comparison with his peers.

    This was a man who once superintended the Petroleum Ministry and never managed to soil his hands in the tricky business of dispensing oil wells. No scandal arising from mismanagement of public funds successfully attached itself to him. Little wonder he could, with much credibility, offer on multiple occasions to be an agent for cleansing the rot in the land. His consistency caused him to become known as Mai Gaskiya, Hausa for the honest or truthful one.

    Aside his rejection of corruption, he was known as a stickler for discipline. An older generation of Nigerians would be familiar with how in the early 80s he and his side kick, Brigadier General Tunde Idiagbon, tried to remake the nation in their image. Their ‘War Against Indiscipline’ (WAI) crusade sought to whip into line a boisterous and unruly populace who had turned their country into some African version of the Wild, Wild West. That project was akin to forcing unwilling horses to the stream: they just refused to drink.

    No surprise, therefore, that Buhari’s military colleagues, uncomfortable with his spartan rigidity, conspired and toppled him. His downfall was a breath of fresh air for an elite and general population that longed for a return to corruption and lawlessness. The stern general would spend the next couple of years cooling his heels under house arrest while his compatriots rushed back to business as usual.

    Read Also: Buhari worked to ensure unity of Nigeria – Ex-IGP Okiro

    While the nation returned to its accustomed debauchery, he retreated into his shell – hardly ever interfering in the scheming successor regime of President Ibrahim Babangida. He would briefly reappear in the public eye when the General Sani Abacha administration wanted a respected figure to oversee the management of the Petroleum (Special) Trust Fund (PTF). This was an aggregation of revenue from removal of subsidies and an increase in fuel price. The proceeds were to be invested in infrastructure projects across the country. The jury is still out on how equitably the projects were distributed, but there was no question that people could see where the money had gone.

    One curious thing about Buhari is how he transformed from this stern, unsmiling military ruler into a man beloved of his people once he exchanged his fatigues for civvies. I presume it’s because they could compare this unassuming individual with a spartan lifestyle – despite the opportunities he had for self enrichment – to the demi-gods in power gorging themselves from our commonwealth.

    As public outcry rose with the unveiling of some new, mind boggling financial scandal, the Buhari mystique grew. His cleanliness became a stark alternative to the rank smell of graft in high places. More and more, people began playing with the idea of, once again, entrusting power to a man they once feared.

    This sentiment wasn’t universally shared among the elite. It is well reported that many within the powerful Northern ruling class admonished leading promoters of the nascent All Progressives Congress (APC) to drop the idea of enthroning Buhari as president. Their lobbying came to nothing in the face of unstoppable historical forces.

    If people keep talking about the man’s unique attributes, it’s not because he lacks achievements in the indices by which success in political office is more commonly measured. The late president accomplished much in eight years. He built the landmark Second Niger Bridge connecting the rest of the country to the Southeast. This was after several false starts by preceding administrations. He got trains running across the country, modernised the military and rolled back the takeover of large swathes of territory by Boko Haram and other terrorists. His investment in growing local staples like rice are notable.

    Like every leader, he disappointed in many areas. For while his personal integrity was never in doubt, the same couldn’t be said about leading figures in his government.

    The late president was an uncommon political phenomenon; a man who always managed to attract around 12 million votes in every electoral cycle in his region.

    He was truly the Nigerian equivalent of the ‘Teflon president.’ These types of individuals only appear once in a generation.

    In life, he changed Nigerian politics – becoming the only opposition candidate to defeat an incumbent president. Even out of office, without aspiring to become some sort of Olusegun Obasanjo type of godfather or power broker, he continued to influence things. Politicians from APC and the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) beat the bush path to his Kaduna redoubt seeking blessings for the looming 2027 battles. The likes of former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, made a song and dance about consulting him before defecting.

    But at core Buhari was an honourable man. He quickly distanced himself from any suggestion that he would work against a house he had built, or undermine Tinubu whose support had made it possible for him to become president.

    Now, he’s gone. Pretenders may think they can inherit the locked-in loyalty of his 12 million voters. They deceive themselves. There would only be one Muhammadu Buhari. His political family – the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) – would quietly dissolve with local strongmen asserting themselves over their fiefdoms.

    It was already happening with the departure of the likes of El-Rufai and former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, to the evolving African Democratic Congress (ADC). Reiterating their loyalty to APC and Tinubu are the wing led by former Katsina State Governor, Aminu Bello Masari and his erstwhile Nasarawa colleague, Umaru Tanko Al-Makura.

    His exit makes Northern Nigeria open territory in the run up to the next elections. It becomes a field of opportunity for all players, with unique advantages for the incumbent president and his party. It would also expose the true strength of many who have been prancing about claiming to be heavyweights, when in reality they only rode on the back of the Buhari wave at each election.

    The late president was loved to bits by his admirers, despised in equal measure by haters. He was a polarising figure not just for his political and religious views, but for his role as a senior officer during the civil war. That made him an object of suspicion in the Southeast despite his best efforts to court the region through picking the likes of the late Senate President, Chuba Okadigbo, as running mate at some point. Judging from reactions in the zone to his passing, he never became flavour of the month.

    Think what you may of the man, Buhari was a giant whose life and actions have impacted Nigeria and would continue to do so. His critics would do well to remember that the work of nation building is never truly done. Now, the nitpickers have their opportunity to show they can do better.

  • 2027 and premature obituaries

    2027 and premature obituaries

    In 2013, when a stellar cast of opposition figures across the political spectrum, unveiled the All Progressives Congress (APC) as their platform to break the Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) 16-year grip on power, then Senior Special Assistant to President Goodluck Jonathan on Public Affairs, Doyin Okupe, reportedly invited people to ‘call me a bastard’ if the party survived one year.

    Two years later, after his principal was dethroned at the ballot box, many Nigerians obliged him with name-calling. In April of 2015 he posted a clarification on Facebook. What he actually said was ‘I will change my name.’ Never mind. The import of his words was contemptuous dismissal of a band of politicians he felt didn’t stand a chance against the PDP behemoth.

    Ever since former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and his collaborators announced the African Democratic Congress (ADC) as the vehicle they would use to challenge President Bola Tinubu in 2027, their action has been greeted with feverish political chatter – much of it pessimistic.

    A couple of days ago, Special Adviser to the President on Public Communications, Daniel Bwala, predicted that the group would scatter in six months. He’s not the only one to take such a position. Many independent analysts have equally been sceptical about this patchwork of strange bedfellows.

    While there is a surfeit of reasons not to take Atiku and his co-travellers seriously, it would be unwise for the ruling party, or even the main opposition PDP – who they seek to supplant – to do so.

    First, let it be said that elections in Nigeria are not necessarily determined by reason, an abundance of good works or ideological clarity. Rather, many contests have been resolved by ethnicity, religion, emotion, personality and pecuniary factors.

    All of these factors were in strong play in 2023 and many would still be there in two years. Who can forget the impact of the Muslim-Muslim or same faith ticket across large swathes of the South and Christian-dominated areas of the North? Who can forget the millions of votes that were garnered on account of ethnic or regional solidarity?

    But the greatest reason why ADC – a me-too project that aims to reprise the APC experiment of 2015 – should be monitored by its rivals is the desperation factor. The opposition wilderness isn’t a place the typical Nigerian politician who has ever tasted power wants to be. And I use the word desperate more in an adjectival sense than pejoratively.

    Read Also: Tinubu not distracted by 2027 election discourse, says Idris

    Take ex-VP Atiku, for instance. There is a sense that this could be his last shot at the presidency given that he would be 80 in two years. Many expect him to run again – defying strident calls for the presidency to remain in the South on the basis of zoning.

    But wouldn’t it be expecting too much to think he would now accept power rotation, when his rejection of the principle in 2023 led to his defeat at the polls? In all his comments after defeat, not once did he attribute his loss to a disastrous performance down South. Instead, he chose to blame Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) rigging and collusion with APC for his humbling.

    It is possible that he may have had an awakening, realising that Southern sentiments which back a regional hold on the presidency till 2031 are still as strong as ever. In that event, he could choose not to run and back a candidate from the same region as Tinubu just to spite him.

    The smart money, however, believes the serial contestant would make the same old noises about competence, his constitutional right to aspire and the democratic imperative of open primaries – and by so doing torpedo this latest contraption. Indeed, some believe it’s his creation for one final push for the presidency.

    The other indication of desperation is that even before ADC has been able to identify what it stands for, Atiku’s would-be rivals are already offering to serve just one term of four years.

    It’s not for nothing that the framers of our constitution provided for two terms of four years. It could be that they understood that not much can be achieved in the initial period when incumbents are busy paying political IOUs and are too wary to take adventurous steps.

    Whether they are governors or presidents, many who have held office since 1999 were careful not to alienate those they needed to secure a second tenure. That’s why the pledges by former Labour Party candidate, Peter Obi and ex-Transport Minister, Rotimi Amaechi, to serve just one term, have been met with mockery.

    Their offer isn’t because both possess magic wands. It isn’t something driven by altruism but by a desperate realisation that the window of opportunity is closing. If they don’t get the ticket this time, in four years it returns to the North for another eight years. That is to say power won’t rotate down South again until 2039 – by which time Obi would be 78, Amaechi 74, and irrelevant in most political calculations.

    What is looming is the retirement of a generation of politicians who have been active for the last four decades. For them, the fear of irrelevance is a powerful motivational factor. It’s akin to what drives a cornered animal to fight for survival.

    While the desire for relevance may be pushing many to ADC, their flight is also fuelled by the assumption that PDP is done for. But anyone who understands the power of incumbency in determining electoral outcomes in these parts knows that people may be writing premature obituaries.

    So far, the much-hyped ADC is just a congregation of ex-this, ex-this – many exhumed from deep retirement. At inception, the legacy parties that formed APC had 11 governors. This number rose to 16 in November 2013 when five PDP governors broke away to join them.

    The same group that had sneered at the defection of Delta’s Sheriff Oborevwori and Akwa Ibom’s Umo Eno, to ruling party, saying the next elections would be between ‘Nigerians’ and the incumbent, are desperately searching these type of defectors. We’ve also been reminded about how Obi secured six million votes without a governor on his side. Sure, but see where it got him.

    There’s no question that like most incumbent administrations, Tinubu’s government is in for a tough fight. Unlike two years ago, it now has a record that opponents can savage and voters assess. What makes it more difficult is the deep cynicism and polarisation within the polity. He faces foes who are unwilling to acknowledge that he has achieved anything in two years – even in the face of evidence. 

    He took the risky gambit of picking hot potatoes that his predecessors fled from. It would be his challenge to reassure the electorate that the bitter medicine has been worthwhile. It’s a tough sales pitch but not an impossible one.

    On the positive side, he’s been able to neutralise a lot of the demonisation that polluted the voting climate last time. For instance, by his appointments and governance style he’s been able to banish the Muslim-Muslim bugbear, making it a non-factor going forward. After all the talk, Nigeria hasn’t been Islamised.

    He was painted as ill and bedridden. But the same man has been crisscrossing country and globe, so much so that his foreign travels have become a point of opposition attack.

    Those among his foes who have been excitedly writing him off on account of economic challenges forget that he won last time amid similar turmoil.

    In 2015 an incumbent was beaten because there was a united effort that brought together all the major opposition parties root and branch. The copycat bid of 2025 doesn’t come close. PDP, LP and APGA would still go into the next elections in current form, only to be joined by the nascent ADC to further fragment the votes of those want to unseat the incumbent. This was the undoing of the opposition in 2023. The more things change the more they remain the same!

  • 2027 coalitions and collisions

    2027 coalitions and collisions

    The undeclared kick-off of the 2027 general election campaign is something of a false start. It’s a start nonetheless – one laden with boasts, bluster and outright threats. To be fair, the stuff isn’t just coming from one direction: the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and those who would love to oust it, are giving as good as they get.

    Last weekend, the party’s high command descended on Uyo, the Akwa Ibom State capital, to formally receive Governor Umo Eno, who had finally executed his oft-threatened exit from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Everyone from Vice President Kashim Shettima to the party’s entire slate of governors was present.

    The state is home turf for Senate President Godswill Akpabio who was once its governor. Naturally, he was in his element celebrating the bloodless coup that further enfeebled the main opposition party. Akwa Ibom, like most states in the South-South zone, was until recently died-in-the-wool PDP territory. So, it was no mean feat that the entire structure of the governing party would dissolve overnight into enemy camp without resistance.

    While applauding Eno for making the right political choice, Akpabio suggested governors of Bayelsa and Rivers would soon follow. It wasn’t the appeal of a suitor; it was a statement delivered with the certainty of a prophet. Were his prophecy to be fulfilled, not too many would be surprised given that stranger things have been happening lately.

    The punch-drunk PDP didn’t have much of a response to the loss of another heavyweight from within its ranks. It was probably too preoccupied trying to identify which of many claimants was its rightful National Secretary to worry about the rising number of rats fleeing its listing ship.

    With its 10 governors, 36 senators and 118 members of the House of Representatives, it remains, on paper, the preeminent opposition party. But it’s a measure of how low its stock has sunk that some of its leading lights like former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and ex-Senate President David Mark are among sponsors of the yet-to-be-registered All Democratic Alliance (ADA). 

    By their actions and utterances, the two men have written off PDP as a viable vehicle for prosecuting the 2027 election. Atiku has been arguing for months that the only way President Bola Tinubu and APC can be defeated at the next polls is for all opposition platforms to come together. Mark has been less voluble but no less committed to the cause.

    Unfortunately for Atiku, his passion for defeating his one-time ally by all means necessary is not shared by PDP governors who have declared they won’t touch his coalition with a ten-foot pole. This is a significant disagreement which suggests that those who now control the party are unlikely to make the former VP flag bearer given he’s lost faith in the platform. It’s also a pointer that he could yet exit to actualise his ambitions elsewhere.

    Although it remains very much work in progress, what the coalition, or a likely new party, lacks in terms of membership or office holders, it makes up for with bluster and threats. In the face of every setback dealt the opposition by way of high profile defections to the ruling party, its boosters head for television talk shows to offload incendiary interviews.

    Former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, was at it again this week, regurgitating the same talking points. Apparently, he and his confederates had been conducting opinion polls which claim Tinubu had less than 10% approval in every corner of the country.

    For a man of his intellect and sophistication, this faith in his “scientific” polls is touching. Beyond offering comfort to he and his co-conspirators, El-Rufai should treat polls and pollsters with a healthy dose of caution. For one thing, their reputation isn’t what it used to be after they misfired badly in the 2016 Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump presidential contest.

    For months last year they predicted a tight race between Kamala Harris and Trump – only for Election Day to reveal a chasm in support between the two candidates. What’s more, today’s polls may be meaningless in two years when actual voting would be taking place.

    Truth is wise men don’t rush to conclusions on the strength of dodgy opinion polls – especially in a country as unpredictable as Nigeria. If tough economic conditions were the only determinant of electoral success or failure in these parts, then Tinubu wouldn’t be president given the state of the nation between January and February 2023.

    Another noisy figure in the nascent opposition platform is one-time Foreign Minister and former Jigawa State Governor, Sule Lamido. What can be gleaned from his regular utterances is his readiness to join any grouping that can remove the incumbent from office.

    While the focus of these individuals is clear, how to transit from dreaming to reality has become a giant obstacle. For all their hot air, the would-be coalition hasn’t done much to inspire confidence about their project within the political class and in the wider polity. They can’t even agree on how to proceed.

    At the onset, the Social Democratic Party (SDP) was touted as their platform of choice. El-Rufai announced his defection there with much fanfare. But their ardour for the arrangement cooled rapidly. The party’s National Secretary, Dr. Olu Agunloye, now describes his would-be collaborators as “confused people” who are only interested in taking over.

    Former presidential adviser turned critic, Hakeem Baba-Ahmed, has been equally unsparing, describing the coalition’s promoters as only concerned with being the face of project. Just as many had predicted, a collision of egos and ambitions is already playing out.

    Baba-Ahmed laments that even before getting out of the starting block, Nigeria’s latest set of would-be saviours have blown the opportunity of offering a credible challenge to the administration.

    “The most important thing they’re doing wrong is putting themselves forward,” he said on Arise TV. “It’s a coalition of a few politicians who hope that they can arrive at some understanding and then open the door and say, ‘ok, fellow Nigerians, we’ve agreed. This one will be this, and this one will be that, and you can now come in.’

    Read Also: Brazilian-backed $1bn GIP to overhaul Nigeria’s agricultural sector – Tinubu

    “It’s the wrong way about it. None of these people should lead or be seen in a position where they’re determining who should be in that coalition. They can work behind the scenes. What they need is a generational shift and a political shift away from who they are, what they’ve done, what they want to do, to a different set of Nigerians who can give Nigerians hope.

    “These are not the people who are saying, give us trust. Trust us again to solve the problems that the APC is creating. This is the wrong thing. And it’s very difficult to convince politicians that Nigerians can see through you. They don’t have faith that you actually represent a future, a different future from this government. You just want to replace President Tinubu.”

    Put differently, those offering change are as stale as they come, laden with all sorts of unattractive baggage. Virtually all have been active participants in making Nigeria what it is today. That’s why their project is having difficulty scaling the credibility hurdle.

    It’s often said you don’t get a second chance to make the first impression. What those who claim to be speaking for the coalition have succeeded in doing so far is projecting vengeance and retribution, as well as the promotion of the interests of a section of the country, as their agenda.

    Bitterness and outpouring of venom against the incumbent president is no alternative to providing voters an alternative governance vision. All we hear is “we must remove Tinubu.” If that’s all Atiku, El-Rufai and company have to offer, they are set for a rude collision with reality in the not-too distant future.

  • Tinubu Administration at mid-term (2): The security question

    Tinubu Administration at mid-term (2): The security question

    Given the bitter fallout that trailed the 2023 general elections, dispassionate assessments of what’s been achieved in the first two years of President Bola Tinubu’s administration are rare. Admirers, predictably, go into overdrive in gushing praise, while critics swear Nigeria is back in the stone ages. The truth lies somewhere in between.

    What is clear is that significant progress has been made at the macroeconomic level, with much expectation that these improvements would quickly manifest at microeconomic level. The masses of the people often grade success by things they can relate to – prices of staples, cost of transportation, cost of utilities etc.

    The messaging has been that after initial challenges, the economy is on the mend. The same cannot be said about insecurity – an area in which the administration has been locked in mortal combat. It’s been a mixed bag of good news one day, very bad reports the next. It’s the reason why President Tinubu who was originally scheduled to be in Kaduna State today, has made a detour to Benue on a condolence visit of sorts.

    While hitherto volatile areas like Southern Kaduna have witnessed a recession in killings, and swaggering bandits in the Northwest look like they are in retreat, bloodletting in the North-Central resurfaced with a vengeance to blight the modest feel-good factor around the second anniversary.

    Early in April, an attack by anonymous gunmen on six villages in the Bokkos area of Plateau State left 52 people dead and over 2,000 displaced. This incident recalls one in this same district in December 2023 that produced 100 fatalities.  

    Barely, two weeks after the May 29 festivities and a couple of days following the June 12 democracy celebrations, another bloody excursion by a band of killers claimed over 150 lives in Yelwata community, Guma Local Government Area of Benue State. Both incidents are believed to have been perpetrated by herders in their unending battles with farmers in the zone.

    It is easy to blame the incumbent administration for not stamping out the carnage with a flick of its fingers, yet the reality is there’s something deeper going on that would take more than a presidential order to address. It’s a problem that was there before the onset of the Fourth Republic and has resisted the largely ad-hoc solutions thrown at it over time.

    It is estimated that over the last three decades, more than 4,500 lives have been lost in Plateau State in unrelenting violence between ethnic groups. I don’t have the death toll for Benue State over the same period, but suspect they mirror those of its next door neighbour.

    Read Also: Reps probe ₦1.12tr anchor borrowers fund, demand accountability from NIRSAL, BOI

    Along with the Boko Haram insurgency in the Northeast, the farmer-herder conflict in the Middle Belt helped to cement the image of incompetence that enveloped the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) administration headed by Goodluck Jonathan.

    It was a headache that the first All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate, Muhammadu Buhari, made one of three pillars of the 2014/2015 campaign platform. By the time he was leaving office, insecurity was back as a cornerstone of the 2022/2023 campaigns.

    In the final year of Buhari’s tenure, there were headline-grabbing incidents that showed his administration had only taken one step forward and two backwards. For instance, on 28 March, 2022, terrorists ambushed a passenger train traveling between Abuja and Kaduna. They killed some passengers and abducted scores of people.

    What followed was six months of negotiations, and suspected payment of ransom. The hostages would be released in batches – with the last batch of 23 persons being freed in October.

    On June 5, 2022, a terror attack at a Catholic Church in Owo, Ondo State, shook the nation to its roots. Unidentified gunmen casually walked into the church and mowed down more than 30 people.

    Things were so bad that even Buhari’s home state of Katsina was not left out. Up till the 2023 polls, it was battling kidnappings, mass abductions and cattle rustling. The then president had all of eight years to address the issue; it was a measure of how much success he achieved that the problem returned to his successor’s in-box as a welcome gift.

    In the last two years some progress has been made with the government reporting thousands of terrorists and bandits killed. A couple of weeks back, Zamfara State Governor, Dauda Lawal, was crowing about the return of peace to a community that had been ripped apart by the activities of bandits in illegal mining sites, as well as the long running feud between the Hausa and Fulani.

    Contrariwise, the likes of Borno State Governor, Babagana Zulum, were suddenly raising the alarm about a resurgence of attacks by Boko Haram and ISWAP elements. Similar activities have been reported in some of the Islamists old stomping grounds like Adamawa and Yobe States. And, now, the old patterns of killings have resurfaced in Benue and Plateau.

    The same helplessness noticed under Buhari and his predecessors seems to have reared its head. Each cycle of slaughter sows seeds of retribution which the butchers are ever willing to water with blood – patiently overseeing its sprouting into another round of bloodshed.

    High profile visits by the leadership of security agencies haven’t stopped anything. The Chief of Army Staff, Lieutenant General Olufemi Oluyede, made a public show of relocating to the troubled region. This is a hackneyed manoeuvre supposed to create an impression of action, but doesn’t change much. Under Buhari, security chiefs were often ordered to relocate to theatres of conflict to little effect.

    Today, we have the egg-in-the-face situation where the Army Chief, with all the might of his office, is on the scene and right under his nose shadowy killers have pulled of one the worst incidents of slaughter in the nation’s history.

    Nigeria faces a very grave situation in the North-Central zone; one that’s been decades in the making. It shouldn’t be manipulated for advantage because members of the political elite in all parties had their chance to resolve the problem whilst in government over the last half century, but failed to do so.  

    It’s no mystery that any solution to the problem would have to deal with issues surrounding land use between farmers and herders. While the former are aggrieved that cattle casually destroy crops in which much has been invested, the latter argue that killing their animals or even the pastoralists to make up for the damage is unjust. They insist that places where these disputes have played out were grazing routes demarcated by the authorities eons ago.

    In reaction, we’ve seen government make the case for ranching as a way of weaning herders from the out-dated practice of roaming cattle across the country. It has even gone further to create a Livestock Development Ministry. While these measures could have an impact over time, there are other things that can be done in the short term – with telling effect – where there’s political will.

    One such thing is breaking the cycle of retribution. Every round of killings only leaves the victims crying for vengeance. But this unending bloodletting is not just mindless; it’s futile as it never restores what’s been lost. Local communities and leaders at all levels have to resolve to break the cycle at some point and begin the process of healing and forgiveness. Now is a good time to do so.

    Aside the herders and farmers, it’s no secret that politicians have been enablers of notorious gang leaders across the zone. The late, unlamented Gana reportedly had close ties with well-known politicians in Benue and his successors-in-crime are said to be patronised by some of the individuals now shedding crocodile tears. They can help the process of change by distancing themselves from known criminals.

    Lastly, while everyone claims to know who is responsible for some of the killings, very few have been apprehended and made to face the music. Given the gravity of crimes being committed in the North-Central zone, people need to be held to account and pay a commensurate price. Until the killers and their sponsors are brought to justice, there would be no let-up in this recurring national shame.