By Akin Samuel KAYODE
Few developments are more damaging to a democracy than the emergence of a political culture in which elections are respected only when preferred candidates win, democratic processes are celebrated only when they produce desired outcomes, and political actors become permanent critics of every verdict that does not align with their personal expectations. Unfortunately, this troubling culture has found one of its most visible expressions in the recent conduct and pronouncements of former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Babachir David Lawal.
At first glance, Babachir Lawal’s latest criticisms of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress, ADC, may appear to be just another disagreement within the opposition camp. However, a closer examination reveals something much deeper. The issue is no longer merely about Babachir Lawal or Atiku Abubakar. The real issue is the dangerous political mindset that increasingly treats every unfavourable outcome as evidence of conspiracy, manipulation, or illegitimacy.
Nigeria is passing through one of the most challenging periods in its modern history. Millions of citizens are struggling under severe economic pressure. Businesses are fighting for survival. Young graduates are searching for opportunities. Families are making difficult choices to cope with rising living costs. In such circumstances, Nigerians expect political leaders to rise above petty rivalries and focus on solutions. Yet some politicians appear determined to drag the national conversation back into the familiar swamp of personal grievances and endless political bitterness.
It is against this backdrop that Babachir Lawal’s recent outburst deserves careful scrutiny.
Nigerians will recall that in 2022, Babachir Lawal distanced himself from the All Progressives Congress, APC, following the emergence of Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the party’s presidential candidate and the subsequent selection of Kashim Shettima as his running mate. He publicly opposed the Muslim-Muslim ticket and repeatedly argued that Tinubu would not emerge victorious in the 2023 presidential election.
The prediction was bold. It was emphatic. It was presented with remarkable certainty. Yet when Nigerians went to the polls and the electoral process ran its course, Bola Ahmed Tinubu emerged as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The prediction failed.
Ordinarily, political maturity demands reflection when events prove one’s assumptions wrong. It requires the humility to reassess positions and acknowledge political realities. Instead, what followed was a familiar pattern. The prediction may have failed, but the dissatisfaction remained. The winner became the problem. The process became the problem. The outcome became the problem.
Today, history appears to be repeating itself.
Having associated himself with the ADC coalition movement, Babachir Lawal appeared enthusiastic about the platform’s prospects. Yet immediately Atiku Abubakar emerged victorious in the party’s presidential primaries, the complaints began once more. Allegations surfaced. Questions were raised. The legitimacy of the process suddenly came under attack.
This naturally raises an unavoidable question. If the ADC primaries were conducted twenty times under identical circumstances, would Atiku Abubakar not still emerge victorious in the overwhelming majority of those contests?
The answer is obvious to anyone familiar with Nigerian politics.
Atiku Abubakar is not an unknown figure struggling for recognition. He is one of the most experienced politicians in Nigeria’s democratic history. He served as Vice President for eight years. He has contested multiple presidential elections. He possesses extensive political networks, nationwide visibility, and a structure that spans the six geopolitical zones. Whether one admires him or opposes him, his political influence cannot be dismissed.
However, the more important point is not Atiku’s strength. The more important point is the weakness of the argument being advanced against him. Those claiming that his emergence automatically proves manipulation must explain why a candidate with decades of political experience, national name recognition, extensive organisational reach, and an established support base should somehow have been expected to lose. Democratic contests produce winners and losers. They do not become fraudulent simply because the outcome disappoints certain individuals.
The truth is that some people do not actually have a problem with democratic processes. They simply have a problem with outcomes they cannot control. When their preferred candidate wins, democracy has prevailed. When their preferred candidate loses, democracy has supposedly been subverted. Such thinking represents one of the greatest threats to democratic stability.
A functioning democracy requires something more difficult than victory. It requires the maturity to accept defeat. It requires the discipline to respect outcomes even when they are disappointing. It requires consistency.
This brings us to perhaps the most ironic aspect of Babachir Lawal’s latest intervention.
Today, he seeks to position himself as a defender of credibility, accountability, transparency, and political integrity. Yet Nigerians cannot discuss credibility without recalling the circumstances under which his own tenure as Secretary to the Government of the Federation came to an end.
This was the same Babachir Lawal whose name became nationally associated with the infamous grasscutter controversy, a scandal that dominated public discourse, generated widespread criticism, triggered investigations, and eventually resulted in his suspension and removal from office during the Buhari administration.
To be clear, he was subsequently discharged and acquitted after the prosecution failed to establish its case. That fact should be acknowledged. However, it is equally true that his departure from office remains one of the most controversial episodes of that administration.
Consequently, there is something deeply ironic about a politician whose own stewardship became the subject of intense national scrutiny now presenting himself as the ultimate judge of every political process and every political actor.
Public credibility is not established merely by criticising others. It is earned through consistency. It is earned through self-examination. It is earned through the willingness to apply the same standards to oneself that one demands of opponents.
Before embarking on another mission to lecture Nigerians about integrity and accountability, Babachir Lawal may wish to undertake a sincere assessment of his own political journey. The most persuasive moral authority is not the authority that speaks the loudest. It is the authority that demonstrates consistency between words and actions.
More troubling, however, is the broader political culture that such conduct represents.
Nigeria cannot build a stable democracy if every election is judged not by the fairness of the process but by the identity of the winner. The moment citizens and politicians begin accepting outcomes only when those outcomes favour them, democracy ceases to function as a system of rules and becomes little more than a contest of personal preferences.
The real issue, therefore, is not Babachir Lawal alone. The real issue is the political culture he increasingly represents, a culture in which loyalty shifts with circumstances, principles change with convenience, and every defeat is transformed into a conspiracy. It is a culture that weakens institutions, erodes public confidence, and encourages citizens to distrust democratic processes whenever results prove inconvenient.
At a time when millions of Nigerians are demanding solutions to pressing national challenges, the country needs leaders focused on rebuilding confidence, restoring economic stability, strengthening institutions, and promoting unity. What it does not need is another cycle of endless political grievance, selective outrage, and perpetual dissatisfaction.
Babachir Lawal is perfectly entitled to support or oppose any candidate of his choosing. That is his democratic right. What he cannot reasonably expect is for Nigerians to ignore the contradictions that have become increasingly evident in his political conduct.
When every unfavourable outcome becomes illegitimate, every successful rival becomes a target, and every democratic verdict becomes unacceptable, reasonable people are justified in asking a simple question: Is the problem really the process, or is the problem the inability to accept outcomes that differ from personal expectations?
As Nigeria moves steadily towards 2027, the future will not be determined by political bitterness, selective outrage, or perpetual dissatisfaction. It will be determined by the collective judgement of millions of Nigerians seeking competent leadership, effective governance, and practical solutions to the challenges confronting the nation.
Nigeria cannot afford a politics in which every defeat becomes a conspiracy, every disagreement becomes a grievance, and every democratic outcome becomes illegitimate simply because it failed to satisfy personal expectations. The nation deserves leaders who can accept both victory and defeat with equal maturity, who can place principle above convenience, and who can strengthen democratic institutions rather than undermine them whenever outcomes prove unfavourable.
Until that happens, the real crisis confronting Nigerian politics will not be the outcome of elections but the inability of some politicians to accept them. And until that culture changes, Nigeria’s democratic progress will continue to face its greatest obstacle, not from its institutions, but from those who seek to delegitimise them whenever they fail to get their way.
Akin Samuel KAYODE.
Member,
The Narrative Force (TNF).
01062026.
