By Obike Ukoh

There is great drift in Nigeria’s political campaigns from what it used to be yester-years. In the days of the National Convention of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC), led by Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, Action Group (AG), led by Chief Obafemi Awolowo, among others, campaigns were vigorous, rigorous and issue-based.

It was even so in the Second Republic, when Alhaji Shehu Shagari, among others came on stage. They did not solicit for endorsements by critical stakeholders, they campaigned for votes. 

They traversed the length and breadth of the country, soliciting for votes. Undoubtedly, they visited major towns in the country to interface with the people while seeking for their votes.

The crowds that thronged the campaign venues, were organic and not paid to come and listen to the aspirants.

Today, the situation is entirely different, especially for presidential candidates. The practice for some political parties is just to select a state in the geo-political zones, and transport party supporters to listen to the aspirants. 

In addition, appointees are frontally informed to deliver their constituencies, as if the power to do that reside with them.

Many stakeholders and analysts that spoke on the issue, noted that Nigerian political campaigns have lost ideological content, with money, prebendalism, violence and impunity dominating contemporary politics.

They urged political actors seeking elective political positions to engage voters through robust political campaigns.

They called on politicians to return to the era when political actors take political campaigns down to grassroots and major political hubs of the country.

Dr John Otu, former Commissioner for Information and State Orientation in Ebonyi State said that political campaigns have lost ideological content, with money, prebendalism, violence and impunity dominating contemporary politics.

Otu, also a lecturer at Alex Ekwueme Federal University, Ndufu-Alike, Ikwo (AE-FUNAI), said that unlike the era of nationalist politicians such as Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe and later Chief MKO Abiola, contemporary politicians appeared less inclined to engage voters through extensive campaigns centred on ideology and policy.

Otu said presidential campaigns had increasingly become exercises in political mobilisation driven by money and patronage rather than persuasion through ideas.

“Things that mattered in democratic politics seem to be in abeyance in contemporary Nigerian society.

“Politicians today no longer play ideological or intellectual politics but prebendal politics or politics that’s pejoratively described as one of stomach infrastructure,” Otu said.

According to him, the decline has also affected the quality of political leadership and public confidence in democratic institutions.

“Sadly, those at the helms seem to disdain the hitherto cherished values of integrity, honesty, competence and compassion.

“It’s now a zero-sum game: it’s now a battle of who is more corrupt than the other, with glaring displays of violence and impunity,” he said.

Otu said that the transformation of campaigns into expensive political contests had made it increasingly difficult for candidates with limited financial resources but strong ideas and competence to compete effectively.

He said that the development could weaken democracy if voters became more interested in immediate financial benefits than the long-term consequences of electing leaders.

The former commissioner urged political parties to return to issue-based campaigns and compel presidential candidates to present clear programmes on the economy; security, education, healthcare, employment and other national challenges.

He also called on voters, the media, civil society organisations and academic institutions to demand greater accountability from politicians.

The university don said that Nigerian democracy would become stronger when elections were determined by ideas, competence, integrity and the ability of candidates to deliver democratic dividends rather than money and political intimidation.

Also speaking, Mr Joseph Onwe, a socio-political commentator, explained that gratification and party affiliation had significantly influenced voters’ choices.

Onwe argued that voters should be encouraged to choose candidates on the basis of party manifestoes, policies and programmes rather than gratification.

He noted that presidential campaigns as well as campaign for other political offices no longer gather the usual steam that characterised post independence electioneering campaigns.

“Unlike the era of Obafemi Awolowo, Nnamdi Azikiwe and Ahmadu Bello when political campaigns were issue-based and leaders reach out to voters to solicit support, it is sadly not so again under the current dispensation,” Onwe said.

Prof. Eugene Nweke, a former Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academics) Ebonyi State University (EBSU), observed that candidate credibility, integrity and competence were increasingly influencing voters’ decisions ahead of the 2027 elections.

He suggested a gradual shift from blind party loyalty, while urging politicians to engage the electorate on robust issue-based campaigns. 

A political scientist, Dr Ifeanyi Ibekwe Kazi, noted that the political campaigns strategy changed as a result of exigencies of the time.

He said that  insecurity has genuinely changed the geography of campaigning, as a  presidential candidate now has to consider: “security escorts; route security; crowd control; kidnapping and other criminal threats; attacks by political opponents disruption of rallies; the safety of party supporters travelling to rallies,’’ among others.

Kazi said that vote-buying may certainly not be responsible for the current development,“ because vote-buying does not necessarily eliminate campaigning. It changes what the campaign is trying to accomplish.’’

He also said that the emergence of political intermediaries, like campaign councils and other layers of political structures from national party structure, state structure, senatorial structure, local government structure, among others, would necessarily eliminate physical travelling by aspirants.

Kazi also said that in this era of television and social media, “ a candidate can now address millions of Nigerians without physically travelling to them.

“One speech can be distributed through: television; radio; Facebook;X; YouTube; TikTok; WhatsApp; online news; campaign videos; and livestreams.’’

He also listed increased tremendous increases in campaign costs, as being responsible for decreased physical contacts with the electorate.

A stakeholder, Mr Godfrey Chukwukelu, in his contribution, also said that the social media and television, greatly reduced physical travelling and contacts for electioneering.

He said that before, physical rallies were the only way to reach the electorate, “but today social media and advancements in technology  allow a wider reach to targeted voters/electorate without extensive physical travel.

“Thus, candidates and campaign managers can now disseminate information to voters through online platforms and digital advertisements on social media,’’ Chukwukelu stated.

He also listed security concerns, as one of the reasons for the less emphasis on physical campaigns in Nigeria’s contemporary politics.

He cited the recent experience of Mr Peter Obi, the presidential candidate of NDC in Benue State, where thugs blocked him from going to his destination, stressing that traveling to many towns might pose security risk for candidates and their entourage. 

However, analysts, stakeholders and commentators, say despite the improvements in communications and emergence of social media, politicians, especially presidential candidates must move round the country to see things for themselves.

They say whoever wants to be president of Nigeria in 2027 should travel round to see the condition of the people he wants to govern, the condition of the schools, hospitals, roads among others.

“ It is not proper to sit in Abuja without knowing the problems of Nigerians you want their votes,’’ they stressed.

All in all, the situation in Nigeria now, demands that high political office seekers physically move round their constituencies, to see things for themselves.

Under the presidential system, it is the office holder that it held responsible for his/her actions and inactions and not the party or campaign councils. 

Obike Ukoh, former Deputy Editor-In-Chief, News Agency of Nigeria (NAN)

By Akin Samuel KAYODE

There is perhaps no more fitting metaphor for the recent political conduct of Babachir David Lawal than a barber’s chair. It turns left. It turns right. It swings backwards. It leans forwards. It rotates endlessly in response to every movement around it. Yet after all the turning, spinning, and repositioning, it remains exactly where it started. The appearance of motion is unmistakable, but the evidence of progress is remarkably difficult to find. Increasingly, that metaphor appears to capture the political journey of Babachir Lawal with striking accuracy.

What makes the comparison even more compelling is that a barber’s chair does not determine its own direction. Others turn it. Others position it. Others decide where it faces. It moves constantly, yet seldom under its own independent momentum. For many Nigerians observing Babachir Lawal’s political trajectory over the years, this imagery has become difficult to ignore. There has been movement, certainly. There has been repositioning, undoubtedly. There has been no shortage of political commentary. Yet after years of shifting alliances, changing loyalties, and recurring grievances, Nigerians are still searching for a clearly defined destination.

Politics, after all, is not a competition in movement. It is a test of purpose. It is not measured by how often one changes position, but by whether those positions advance a coherent vision. It is not defined by the frequency of political interventions, but by the value they add to national discourse and democratic development.

This is where the Babachir Lawal story becomes increasingly difficult to understand.

For several years now, Nigerians have watched him move from one political platform to another, from one alliance to another, and from one political disagreement to another. One day he is aligned with a political tendency. Another day he is distancing himself from it. One moment he is championing a cause. The next moment he is questioning the very direction of that cause. The movements are frequent. The transitions are numerous. The dissatisfaction is almost constant.

The pattern became particularly evident during the events leading to the 2023 presidential election. Following the emergence of Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress and the selection of Kashim Shettima as running mate, Babachir Lawal became one of the most outspoken critics of the ticket. He repeatedly argued that Tinubu would not become President and presented that prediction with unmistakable confidence.

The prediction was clear.

The conviction was firm.

The certainty was absolute.

Yet when Nigerians cast their votes and the constitutional processes eventually reached their conclusion, Bola Ahmed Tinubu emerged as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The prediction failed.

The outcome differed from the expectation.

But the dissatisfaction remained.

Ordinarily, one might expect such an experience to encourage reflection. Politics has a way of humbling even the most confident observers. It reminds politicians that no individual possesses a monopoly on wisdom, foresight, or political judgement. Yet instead of producing a period of reassessment, the episode appeared to become merely another stop in an ongoing journey of political discontent.

Then came the coalition movement.

Once again, Babachir Lawal associated himself with a political project presented as an alternative to the status quo. Once again, hopes were raised. Once again, expectations were created. Once again, a democratic process was conducted.

And once again, the result proved unsatisfactory.

Following the emergence of Atiku Abubakar as the preferred candidate of the African Democratic Congress, objections surfaced. Allegations followed. Questions were raised. The familiar language of dissatisfaction returned.

At this point, however, the issue is no longer Atiku Abubakar.

The issue is no longer Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

The issue is no longer the APC.

The issue is no longer the ADC.

The issue is the pattern.

When dissatisfaction becomes the recurring outcome of virtually every political journey, reasonable people are entitled to ask whether the problem lies with the destination or with the traveller himself.

This is the paradox at the heart of Babachir Lawal’s politics.

The more he moves, the less clear his destination becomes.

The more he rotates, the less certain his direction appears.

The more alliances he embraces, the more temporary those alliances seem to be.

The more political roads he travels, the more Nigerians are compelled to ask where exactly he intends to arrive.

That is why the barber’s chair metaphor resonates so strongly.

The tragedy of a barber’s chair is not that it moves. The tragedy is that after all the movement, it remains rooted to the same spot. It generates motion without momentum. It creates activity without advancement. It turns repeatedly without ever truly travelling.

Likewise, after years of political repositioning, shifting loyalties, and recurring grievances, Nigerians are entitled to ask what lasting national achievement has emerged from all the rotation.

What has been built?

What institution has been strengthened?

What national cause has been advanced?

What democratic principle has been deepened?

What enduring legacy has been created?

These are not hostile questions.

They are necessary questions.

In a democracy, public figures who seek to shape national discourse must be prepared to have their records examined and their contributions assessed. Political relevance cannot be measured solely by the ability to criticise. It must also be measured by the ability to contribute.

Unfortunately, one of the greatest misconceptions in modern politics is the belief that criticism and contribution are the same thing.

They are not.

A politician may criticise endlessly and still contribute very little.

A public figure may oppose every development and still offer no meaningful alternative.

A commentator may dominate headlines and yet leave no lasting impact on the challenges confronting ordinary citizens.

This distinction is especially important today because Nigeria is facing challenges far greater than the grievances of any individual politician.

Across the country, families are struggling with economic hardship. Small businesses are fighting for survival. Young people are searching desperately for opportunities. Communities continue to grapple with insecurity, uncertainty, and declining confidence in public institutions.

These are the issues that occupy the minds of ordinary Nigerians.

The trader in Lagos is not losing sleep over elite political disagreements.

The farmer in Adamawa is not preoccupied with personal disappointments arising from party primaries.

The unemployed graduate seeking a better future is not concerned about which political heavyweight feels aggrieved this week.

Nigerians want solutions.

They want leadership.

They want vision.

They want results.

Against such a backdrop, perpetual political dissatisfaction offers little value.

Nigeria’s tragedy is not a shortage of politicians who know how to complain. The country has never lacked critics, commentators, or professional dissenters. What Nigeria desperately lacks are political actors prepared to remain steadfast to a cause, build enduring institutions, unite diverse interests, and accept that leadership is measured not by perpetual protest but by tangible achievement. Complaints may generate headlines, but they do not generate progress.

The danger of endless rotation is that it can eventually become a substitute for purpose. A politician who is constantly changing direction may create the illusion of relevance, but relevance is not measured by movement. It is measured by destination. It is measured by results. It is measured by whether one’s political journey leaves behind something of lasting value to society. Without that, endless movement becomes little more than a performance.

This is perhaps the deepest contradiction in the Babachir Lawal story. The more he rotates from one position to another, the more difficult it becomes to identify the enduring principle that guides those movements. Conviction provides direction. Purpose provides consistency. Leadership provides clarity. When all three become obscured by recurring dissatisfaction, the public is left with questions rather than confidence.

Nigerians are increasingly becoming a politically conscious people. They have learnt through experience to distinguish between those who build and those who merely react. They know the difference between leaders who are motivated by a vision and politicians who appear to be motivated by grievances. They understand that a nation cannot be transformed by perpetual dissatisfaction, no matter how eloquently it is expressed.

Perhaps the greatest irony in all of this is that Babachir Lawal increasingly presents himself as a defender of political integrity, accountability, and democratic principles. Every citizen has the right to advocate for such values. Indeed, democracy depends upon them.

However, credibility is strengthened by consistency.

Nigerians have not forgotten the controversy that became one of the defining political scandals of the Buhari administration, the so-called grasscutter affair. The controversy generated national outrage, prompted investigations, dominated public discussion, and eventually contributed to Babachir Lawal’s removal from office as Secretary to the Government of the Federation.

While subsequent legal proceedings resulted in his discharge and acquittal, public memory operates differently from judicial processes. Political credibility is shaped not only by court judgements but also by public perception, personal conduct, and historical experience.

That reality makes it difficult for many Nigerians to accept unquestioningly the posture of moral superiority that often accompanies his political interventions.

Leadership demands more than criticism.

It demands consistency.

It demands self-awareness.

It demands the ability to apply the same standards to oneself that one applies to others.

Above all, it demands the maturity to distinguish between personal disappointment and institutional failure.

As Nigeria moves steadily towards another important electoral cycle, citizens will increasingly separate those who generate noise from those who generate solutions. They will distinguish between politicians who specialise in grievance and leaders who specialise in nation-building. They will distinguish between movement and momentum.

That distinction matters because nations cannot be built on perpetual dissatisfaction.

They cannot be governed through endless political grievances.

They cannot progress through constant rotation.

At some point, movement must lead somewhere.

At some point, criticism must produce an alternative.

At some point, political activity must translate into national value.

History is rarely kind to those who spend their political lives opposing one destination after another without presenting a credible destination of their own. It remembers those who built bridges where others erected barriers. It remembers those who offered solutions where others offered complaints. It remembers those who accepted political setbacks with maturity and returned with stronger ideas rather than stronger grievances.

The real challenge confronting Babachir “Barber Chair” Lawal is therefore not whether he can continue rotating from one political position to another. The challenge is whether, after all the rotations, he can point Nigerians to a destination that justifies the journey.

That is the challenge confronting Babachir “Barber Chair” Lawal today.

The defining question is no longer whether he supports Atiku Abubakar or opposes him. It is no longer whether he agrees with Bola Ahmed Tinubu or disagrees with him. It is not even about which political platform he chooses tomorrow.

The defining question is far simpler and far more consequential.

After years of political rotation, what lasting destination has Babachir Lawal actually reached?

History will not judge political actors by how many times they changed direction. It will not remember them for the number of alliances they joined or abandoned. It will not celebrate them for the volume of their complaints or the frequency of their objections.

History remembers builders.

History remembers problem-solvers.

History remembers those who strengthened institutions, inspired confidence, and left their nation better than they found it.

And that is the unanswered question hanging over Babachir “Barber Chair” Lawal’s politics today.

After all the turning.

After all the repositioning.

After all the objections.

After all the noise.

Where exactly has the journey led?

A barber’s chair can spend an entire day turning in every conceivable direction and still remain rooted to the same spot. Nigeria cannot afford such politics. The nation needs direction, purpose, consistency, and leadership. It needs movement that leads somewhere. It needs momentum rather than motion. It needs builders rather than perpetual critics.

For while endless rotation may keep a barber’s chair occupied, it does absolutely nothing to move a nation forward. And that, perhaps more than any speech, accusation, or political quarrel, is the enduring lesson Nigerians should take from this saga.

ASK writes from Asokoro, FCT, Abuja.

Akin Samuel KAYODE.
Member,
The Narrative Force(TNF).
02062026.

The Peter Obi Media Reach (POMR) has dismissed reports circulating on social media and some news platforms alleging that Peter Obi secured 45 million votes in a purported primary election of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC).

In a statement issued on Tuesday in Abuja, Ibrahim Umar, spokesman for POMR, described the figures as false, fabricated and misleading.

He stated that no such primary election took place and that no official figures were generated from any political process involving Obi.

“The attention of the Peter Obi Media Office has been drawn to certain 45 million primary vote figures currently circulating on social media and various news platforms, purporting to be the breakdown of official results from an imaginary primary by the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) ascribed to Mr Peter Obi.

“We wish to state categorically that these figures are entirely false and fabricated,” he said.

Umar urged members of the public, supporters and media organisations to disregard the claims.

He added that all official information concerning Obi’s political engagements and activities would only be communicated through verified and authorised channels.

The spokesman also accused those behind the reports of attempting to associate Obi with fraudulent activities.

“Those behind this fraudulent figure attribution to Peter Obi are looking for partners in their fraud, but they should look elsewhere, not with Peter Obi,” he stated.

Former President Goodluck Jonathan says he will consult widely before deciding on a possible return to the 2027 presidential race after Nigerian youths urged him to re-enter frontline politics.

Former President Goodluck Jonathan has responded to mounting pressure from youth groups calling on him to contest the 2027 presidential election, saying he has heard their appeal and will not rush a decision.

The former president received youth groups on Thursday at his office in Abuja. They visited him to press for his return to active politics ahead of the next general election.

Meanwhile, the groups argued that his experience remains relevant in shaping Nigeria’s political direction. They urged him to consider stepping back into the race.

Jonathan Keeps Decision Open

However, Jonathan stopped short of making any commitment.

“I’ve heard you loud and clear. I will consult widely before taking any decision,” Jonathan said.

Consequently, he left the door open while signaling that consultations will guide his next political step.

Furthermore, Jonathan used the meeting to call on young Nigerians to push for peaceful, transparent, and credible elections.

He stressed that democracy only works when citizens take part actively and ensure elections reflect the true will of the people.

Voter Apathy Concern

Speaking on participation, Jonathan raised concern over low voter turnout across Nigeria.

“Nigeria has one of the highest levels of voter apathy in all the elections I have observed globally,” he said.

In response, he urged stronger civic responsibility among eligible voters.

Meanwhile, he called on young people to engage more in political processes instead of staying on the sidelines.

He said active participation remains key to strengthening democratic governance in the country.

Furthermore, Jonathan, who led Nigeria from 2010 to 2015, continues to feature in discussions around possible political alignments ahead of the 2027 elections.

Political observers have repeatedly linked his name to growing debates on opposition restructuring and potential consensus candidacies.

External Links

• Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)
• BBC News Nigeria
• Premium Times Nigeria

By Richard Ikiebe

Some politicians depend on massive turnout to win, while others thrive when citizens are too afraid to leave their homes to vote. The recent stream of videos from Benin City, of attacks on politicians and the vandalism of a party state secretariat, reprises a familiar script in Nigeria’s fear-based politics. They are harrowing reminders that this second logic is still an active strategy.

In political theory, “politics of fear” refers to the deliberate production and amplification of fear to secure power, shape opinion and justify the measures. In a landscape already saturated by insecurity and weak institutions, violence against segments of the electorate and opposition figures is a cheap and effective way to intimidate, exhaust and demobilise the opposition.

The goal is not to win the argument before the people. It scares enough people off the path to the polling booth so that a small group of loyalists remains. Those forced to abdicate their civic role reconsider and say, “politics no concern me.”  Thus, indifference becomes the first layer.

The next layer is cautious observation. This involves citizens who still watch, talk, and complain. They “sidon look,” attentive but disengaged. They have not entirely abandoned the system they no longer believe in; fear hardens their posture into resignation.

Stories of past electoral violence, thuggery at polling units, ballot snatching, and clashes with security forces add to the mix. Stay away begins to appear quite reasonable and justifiable: nothing will change, they will rig it anyway, and you might get hurt trying. At that point, “sidon look” turns fear and private cynicism into self-preservation and public silence.

Political fear is largely manufactured, crafted and transmitted through headlines, rumour and threats. Around every election, gruesome violence stories multiply about “unknown gunmen,” and neighbourhoods that had been “taught a lesson.” The discreet advice: today is not the day to move around.

With thugs and “area boys” at polling centres, masked security officers with uncertain loyalties, every citizen walking towards the polling unit is forced to ask themselves: is my single vote worth this risk? And the absence of credible protection reinforces the feeling. For many, even the determined, the answer is no. The result is low, skewed turnout, a quiet victory for the architects of fear.

In Nigeria’s patron-client landscape, fear largely travels through intermediaries. Traditional rulers, market leaders, transport union bosses and community gatekeepers sit between political elites and ordinary citizens, wielding mostly economic authority. In a healthy democracy, they would mobilise people to participate freely and defend their rights.

In our reality, these intermediaries “advise” citizens on which candidates must win to “deliver” results, and which parties must not gain a foothold in the community. The pressure for them ranges from loss of access to removal from office, or worse – physical harm. Under such conditions, their instructions become menacing signals not to come out at all. Bloc voting and mass apathy are the unlikely twins, the result of organised fear.

Fear-based politics has a simple electoral logic. High turnout creates uncertainty and genuine possibilities for change; low, selective turnout protects those already in control. When urban youth, minorities, or disillusioned swing voters decide it is safer to stay home, the electorate is filtered.

Those who remain are loyalists, dependants in patronage networks, or people mobilised by local intermediaries who can guarantee safety in return for forced obedience. In that narrower Nigeria, a winner need not be broadly popular. Fear has already structured the electorate in their favour.

As the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) releases the timetable for next year’s elections, fear-based politics risks hardening into the system’s default setting. Voters betrayed or endangered in 2015 and 2023 are already inclined to withdraw. Every election cycle that rewards intimidation and demobilisation tells politicians, this works, do more of it.

If this continues, elections will rest on the consent of a shrinking, skewed slice of the population, and state legitimacy will continue to erode steadily. Over time, a culture of learned helplessness takes root; the people assume that “they” will always rig elections, and the alternative begins to feel impossible. And democracy is devoid of popular choice.

Breaking this cycle requires justified outrage and a deliberate effort to change both the emotional climate of elections and the structures that make fear politically profitable. First, physical risks must be visibly reduced. Election security cannot be an afterthought or a mere show of force; it must credibly guarantee that voters can come and go unharmed, and that perpetrators and sponsors of violence face real consequences.

Second, intermediaries must be protected. Traditional rulers, religious leaders, and market associations will stay influential, while law and public scrutiny must limit how their authority is coerced or weaponised.

Third, fear narrative must shift through counterstrokes of courage, solidarity and efficacy. Civic and political education must speak directly to fear and “sidon look,” helping citizens recognise demobilisation tactics and see abstention as a costly choice, and not neutral self-protection.

If fear remains a most reliable political instrument, each election will become another expression of a paper-thin democracy that evaporates at the polling unit. The challenge is to move from rule by fear to rule by consent, from a politics defined by who stays away to one genuinely shaped by who dares to show up.

Dr Richard Ikiebe is a Media and Management Consultant, Teacher and Chairman, Board of Businessday Newspaper

Nigeria’s political space never stays quiet for long. This week, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, stirred the waters again. He declared that if he decides to run for president, Nigerians will vote for him “massively.”

Wike made the statement during a media chat in Abuja. He spoke with confidence. He pointed to his years as governor of Rivers State and his current role in the FCT as proof of capacity. In his view, performance drives popularity. Therefore, he believes voters would reward him at the ballot box.

His remarks have sparked debate across party lines. Are Nigerians ready for another bold, outspoken contender in the race for Nigerian presidency?

Speaking during a media chat on Monday, the former Rivers State governor said his popularity and achievements in office give him an edge.

“Nigerians still love me, and if I run for the presidential election, they will vote for me massively,” he stated.

Performance as Political Capital

Wike built his brand on visible projects and aggressive politics. As governor of Rivers State, he embarked on large infrastructure projects—roads, flyovers, schools, and government buildings. Supporters argue that he delivered tangible results. Critics, however, question the cost and long-term impact of some projects.

Now, as FCT Minister under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Wike has taken on the task of reshaping Abuja. He has pushed for road expansion, stricter enforcement of land regulations, and faster project completion.

Notably, he often conducts inspections himself. He calls out contractors publicly. He sets deadlines. This hands-on style appeals to many Nigerians who feel leaders must show urgency.

However, presidential elections demand more than visible projects. They require broad national appeal, coalition building, and trust across regions.

Political Strategy or Early Positioning?

Some analysts believe Wike’s statement serves as early positioning rather than a declaration. Nigerian politicians often test the waters long before formal campaigns begin.

Meanwhile, internal party negotiations usually shape final outcomes. Power rotation debates, zoning arrangements, and elite consensus still influence presidential tickets.

In addition, President Tinubu’s own political future may shape the 2027 landscape. If he seeks a second term, potential challengers within and outside the ruling party may reconsider their timing.

Thus, Wike’s confidence may reflect ambition. It may also reflect strategy.