By Ussiju Medaner
The past few months have been significantly eventful in Nigeria’s political landscape. Political alignments and realignments have dominated national discourse—at times overshadowing the more urgent needs of governance and socio-economic development. It is evident that the current administration cannot remain entirely insulated from the weight of persistent political activities, which, unfortunately, continue to distract from the core responsibilities of governance.
I feel compelled to share these thoughts, not out of partisanship, but out of genuine concern for the health and stability of our nation. It is difficult—if not impossible—to separate the nature and intensity of political scheming, with its emotional reverberations, from the broader developmental trajectory and cohesion of the state. Therefore, there is a critical need to address the emerging trends, manage their implications, and refocus national attention on the real needs of the people.
I fully recognize and support the universal rights of individuals to freely express themselves, associate, and participate in political discourse. These rights are fundamental to any democracy. Every citizen has the right to speak, to agree or disagree with those in authority, and to pursue a better society through peaceful and lawful means. These principles are enshrined in both international treaties—such as Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)—and in Nigeria’s own Constitution. Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution affirms that: “Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular he may form or belong to any political party, trade union, or any other association for the protection of his interests.”
I reference these provisions to make clear that all politicians have the constitutional backing to organize, realign, or create coalitions, just as we have witnessed in recent weeks. However, that constitutional right does not negate the real and present danger that such political maneuvering can pose to national focus, stability, and governance—especially when motivated more by self-interest than national interest.
But here lies a pertinent question: can the elite behind these coalitions truly agree on any terms reached within their ranks? Can they genuinely rally behind one candidate in the event of a primary loss? These are individuals with long-standing personal ambitions, deep-rooted rivalries, and histories of political betrayal. Many of them have, at different times, undermined one another or defected to opposite camps. Their inability to work together in the past—especially when personal interest was at stake—raises serious doubts about the sustainability and sincerity of the current coalition. Is this truly a coalition for national redemption, or simply a temporary alliance of convenience until ambition drives them apart again?
Barely two years into the current administration, the country has been thrust into what appears to be an aggressive political campaign season. We see heightened politicking, open alignments, realignments, and coalitions—moves that suggest more of a scramble for power than a quest to serve. The consequences are troubling. Such premature politicking risks eroding governmental momentum and distracting national attention from pressing developmental needs.
What we observe appears less about the nation and more about orchestrating systems to benefit a select few. The actors involved in this wave of political recalibration are, in many cases, the same individuals who have shaped Nigeria’s political and economic history over the last three to four decades. These are not new faces. From the administration of President Obasanjo in 1999 to the immediate past government of Muhammadu Buhari, many of today’s political actors have held significant power. What, then, has changed?
If these individuals had the solutions to Nigeria’s problems, why did they not implement them when they were in positions of authority? It is disingenuous for the same players who contributed to the nation’s current challenges to now present themselves as messiahs. Political credibility cannot be earned by merely pointing fingers or capitalizing on public frustration. It must be backed by a legacy of service and measurable impact.
Furthermore, the pattern of exploiting divisions among Nigerians for political gain must be condemned. True leadership unites rather than divides. No politician or political party holds a monopoly on integrity, and none should attempt to polarize the nation under the guise of patriotism. This strategy may have worked in the past, but Nigerians are wiser today. Any leader who seeks to ascend by deepening national fractures should be firmly rejected.
The question of whether the current President deserves re-election in 2027 should be left to the Nigerian electorate. The people’s verdict should be based on their assessment of policy direction, infrastructure delivery, and the success of ongoing reforms—not dictated by disgruntled politicians feeling sidelined from the corridors of power. It is unacceptable that those who contributed to the country’s economic and institutional decay now wish to hijack the narrative for personal political revival.
The case of Atiku Abubakar is particularly noteworthy. As Vice President, he oversaw the controversial privatization program that decimated Nigeria’s industrial capacity—transferring national assets to cronies with neither capacity nor vision. The collapse of institutions like the Nigeria Aluminum Smelting Company, the deterioration of the refineries, and the dismemberment of critical national infrastructure happened under his watch. Today, it is difficult to reconcile that history with his new self-portrayal as a savior.
Similarly, figures such as Rotimi Amaechi and Nasir El-Rufai, who have held public office since 1999, now seek to absolve themselves of blame and redirect accountability to a government still navigating its second year in office. The audacity is staggering. What was the sustainable legacy of either man’s tenure as governor in Rivers or Kaduna? By contrast, Lagos State—under Tinubu and his successors—has maintained a clear trajectory of development that remains unmatched by most subnational governments.
Even Peter Obi, widely hailed by some as a reformer, deserves a closer, more objective scrutiny. His tenure as governor of Anambra State left behind a trail of questionable priorities. From prolonged strikes by medical and academic workers to alleged conflicts of interest in state investments, his governance credentials demand a more honest appraisal. Rhetoric and personal branding cannot substitute for actual developmental achievements.
At present, the only unifying agenda among these politicians appears to be the removal of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Beyond that singular focus, there is no articulated plan or alternative vision. One is left to wonder what happens should they succeed. What follows? Who leads, and how?
In the end, Nigeria stands to lose the most. The ongoing political scheming risks derailing carefully implemented policies and programs. The coalition has deliberately brought the political battle to the doorstep of the incumbent President, who, inevitably, must respond. That response—no matter how restrained—will come at a cost to national governance and focus. It is an unfortunate but unavoidable reality.
What Atiku and his political allies may ultimately achieve, beyond their likely electoral defeat in 2027, is the costly distraction they are creating—distractions that rob Nigeria of the peace and concentration required for sustainable development. Their relentless pursuit of power, absent a compelling national vision, does not bode well for the country’s health.
This is not good for Nigeria’s political or socio-economic health. And we must all say so.
GOD BLESS THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA!
Professor Medaner is reachable via: justme4justice@yahoo.com; info@medaner.com
