By: Yusuf Shehu-Tijani
At the expiration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s present tenure, the Southwest would have been in power for 12 years. The South for approximately 18 years. And if the South pushes for another 4 years, it would be 22 years. 22 years to 10 years is not only unfair but unjust. This is not a matter of sentiment; it is a matter of balance, equity, and the moral foundation upon which our fragile democracy stands.
Ordinarily, the North should take over in 2027 and make up the eight years before it returns to the South to maintain a fair balance and avoid tension moving forward. This is not a concession; it is a correction. It is not agitation; it is alignment with an unwritten but deeply respected protocol that has guided stability since 1999.
President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua died in office after barely two years. As a matter of fact, he became seriously ill barely one year into office. That moment was not just a personal tragedy; it was a national disruption. It interrupted the natural flow of the zoning arrangement and created an imbalance that has remained unresolved.
Goodluck Jonathan served out that tenure. He went on to run again and was supported to win. Six years of the North were effectively served out by the South. If the North had insisted that Jonathan step down after completing Yar’Adua’s tenure, it would have been misconstrued as insensitivity, even hostility. The North chose peace over provocation. It chose unity over insistence.
That the North has been short-changed by eight years in the current dispensation is a truth, and no one seems willing to address it. Silence does not erase imbalance. Avoidance does not heal structural injustice. Rather than blackmail the North or dismiss its concerns, leaders should prevail to ensure that this deficit is addressed now, not postponed into a future crisis.
Politics should not overtake our common humanity. President Yar’Adua died in office. We should not wish it away, nor should we manipulate its consequences for political convenience. It could happen to any region. Patriotism and leadership demand that we confront realities that may constitute serious challenges in the future. Justice delayed in this context may well become instability invited.
When the military ceded power in 1999, the memory of the June 12 election annulment and the injustice done to Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola was still fresh. To calm the polity and restore confidence, there was a deliberate insistence that the presidency be zoned to the Southwest. This was not charity; it was a strategic act of national healing.
President Olusegun Obasanjo did two terms of eight years and, in his wisdom and patriotism, worked to ensure that power returned to the North thereafter. He understood that democracy in Nigeria is not sustained by numbers alone but by balance, perception, and trust. That decision laid the groundwork for relative stability in the early years of the Fourth Republic.
In 2007, Gov Peter Odili was considered most prepared and widely accepted to be president. Yet Obasanjo prioritized balance over preference. He could have argued, as some do today, that since military leadership had been dominated by the North, their years should be counted against the region. He did not. He chose nation over narrative.
This is the essence of what has come to be known, informally, as Obasanjo’s protocol—a recognition that rotation between North and South is not merely political arithmetic but a stabilizing mechanism in a plural society. It is not perfect, but it has prevented deeper fractures.
Other matters must also be stated clearly. The Presidency is not in Atiku Abubakar’s hands or in his gift basket. It is a national trust shaped by history, equity, and collective understanding. The North’s position is not about personalities; it is about principle. It is about addressing an eight-year deficiency that, if ignored, may fester into a larger national question.
Each time Atiku ran, the Southeast was on the ballot with him, reflecting his authenticity at inclusion. Having worked closely with leaders like General Shehu Musa Yar’Adua and President Olusegun Obasanjo, there is an established disposition towards national stability and continuity. The emphasis has always been on fairness, integrity, and the preservation of the democratic order.
The argument, therefore, is not one of entitlement but of equilibrium. A federation such as ours cannot afford prolonged perception of dominance by one section. The consequences are not immediate, but they are inevitable—resentment, distrust, and eventual rupture.
To insist that the North completes its interrupted eight years is to reinforce a culture of fairness. It is to signal that agreements, even unwritten ones, carry weight. It is to demonstrate that Nigeria can learn from its past and correct its course without descending into conflict.
Let it be said plainly: this is not about North versus South. It is about democratic and national stability. In choosing a path that has, despite its imperfections, kept our democracy going, we internalize peace.
I admonish our leaders to rise above expediency, the North should make up its eight years. In the same vein the South East should be entitled to EIGHT not Four years. Equity should be engrained in our values, and Politicians should look beyond the next election and consider the next generation for Nigeria to arise and shine. The North making up its eight years is not a demand rooted in power; rather, we should interpret it as a proposition rooted in peace.
