Peter Obi

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The Presidency has dismissed claims by former Anambra State Governor Peter Obi that he may not be alive to participate in the 2027 general election. It described the remarks as an attempt to gain public sympathy.

Peter Obi, the presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), made the statement during an interview with Chude Jideonwo. He alleged that the Federal Government was frustrating his means of livelihood and targeting opposition figures. He also claimed that his activities were being deliberately obstructed.

“The way they are going… not even as a candidate, I might not even be alive. I’m telling you,” Obi said.

Reacting in a statement posted on X on Wednesday, the Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, rejected the allegation. He described Obi’s remarks as false and politically motivated.

“His claim that he may not be alive for the January 2027 election and that people are being pressured not to invite him to social events is nothing more than a fabricated narrative, a page from his book of lies and propaganda,” the statement reads.

Onanuga also argued that the claims were intended to shift public attention away from internal challenges facing Obi and his political platform.

“These claims lack substance and are designed to attract undue sympathy and deflect attention from his credibility deficit and the problems faced by his SPV and his adopted political association, the NDC.

“It is important to note that Mr Obi has a substantial interest in Fidelity Bank. The institution continues to thrive as a result of the current administration’s robust economic reforms.

“The government is certainly not targeting the bank. Rather than being “haunted” by the government, Mr Obi appears to be grappling with the consequences of his litany of unfounded statements.”

The presidential aide further stated that President Tinubu remains committed to implementing his administration’s reforms and is not distracted by what he described as Obi’s claims.

According to Onanuga, the President is “fully focused” on consolidating his reforms and does not have time for “Obi’s self-serving narratives and lies”.

By Uzair Adam


The presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) for the 2027 general election, Peter Obi, has claimed that persistent intimidation and alleged harassment by the Federal Government have made him uncertain about surviving to contest the next presidential election.

Obi made the remarks during an interview on With Chude, hosted by media personality Chude Jideonwo, where he alleged that the government had consistently frustrated his activities and targeted opposition figures.

Speaking on his political future, the former Anambra State governor said the challenges confronting him had become so severe that he could not confidently say he would be alive by the 2027 election.

“Not even a candidate. I might not even be alive. I’m telling you. Every single thing I do for a living, this government is frustrating it. Deliberately so.

“Everything. So, there is even a possibility, if they have the opportunity, I will not be alive,” Obi said.

He stressed that his remarks were not intended as a direct accusation against any individual but maintained that his experiences suggested deliberate efforts to obstruct his activities.

“It’s not an accusation. I know. I get frustration every day. Because you do things that you think would be normal—it is not normal anymore.

“They won’t come directly and say, ‘Oh, we’re doing this,’ but you can see their hand in virtually everything,” he added.

Responding to a question on whether he believed he was being personally targeted, Obi said the alleged intimidation extended beyond him to other opposition politicians.

“They are attacking everybody who is in opposition personally. I am being attacked personally. Everything.

“Even to provide me with necessary things that I should have been entitled to, not at all,” he said.

To support his claims, Obi recounted an incident at an airport where he alleged that officials locked his vehicle while leaving others untouched.

“I had a case recently at the airport, where people who work in the airport came and locked my car. And I said, ‘It’s me.’ The person in charge said he doesn’t care.

“But I said, ‘Look at the cars of other people.’ And you could see them talking to each other, as if, ‘Who is this one?’”

The former governor also alleged that some associates now avoid publicly interacting with him for fear of attracting attention from authorities.

“I see people I know at the airport; they will not greet me because they are scared of what might happen if they do,” he said.

He further claimed that some supporters had asked him not to attend family celebrations to avoid unwanted scrutiny.

“I have people send me invitations and say, ‘My son, my daughter is wedding, but please don’t come,’” Obi said.

The Federal Government has yet to respond to the allegations.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Former presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress, Peter Obi, has again asked President Bola Tinubu to resign over allegations of off-budget spending raised by the International Monetary Fund.

Obi made the call in a statement on Sunday while reacting to comments by the IMF’s resident representative in Nigeria, Christian Ebeke.

Ebeke had stated on Wednesday that Nigeria recorded off-budget expenditure worth about two per cent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. According to him, the development makes the nation’s fiscal deficit appear lower than its actual borrowing needs.

Reacting to the disclosure, Obi described the situation as alarming. He said it raises fresh concerns about corruption under the current administration.

“The IMF now reveals that about N8.83 trillion in expenditure undertaken in 2025 is not reflected in the budget. This expenditure is not budgeted and is therefore not under legislative oversight or administrative scrutiny. This is horrible,” he said.

The former Anambra State governor stated that the amount exceeds 35 per cent of the N23.96 trillion capital expenditure budget for 2025. He also noted that it is higher than the actual capital releases made during the year.

“It is more than the entire combined budget for education (N3.52 trillion) and health (N2.38 trillion),” Obi stated.

“If such an amount is properly used and accounted for, it could transform Nigeria’s public health and education sectors. It could create hundreds of cottage industries that can provide jobs for thousands of graduates and build a solid foundation for economic development. But we cannot account for it. This is not an isolated incident. This is a pattern of grand corruption that has become part of this administration.

“We have a lot to worry about regarding the state of corruption under President Tinubu. The sort of corruption that is ingrained in total disregard of elementary rules of public finance management poses a grave danger to national security and the stability of the Nigerian state.

“The capture of the Nigerian state and the plunder of its resources are actions that undermine the basis of state stability and deepen poverty and state failure.”

Obi also accused the ruling All Progressives Congress of failing to manage public resources responsibly despite growing economic hardship across the country.

“With the growing poverty and the urgent need for significant upgrades to social and physical infrastructure, a responsible and responsive government would ensure that N8.83 trillion is prudently utilised to address these gaps. But not the Tinubu administration,” he said.

The former governor maintained that recent allegations of corruption and insecurity were enough reasons for the president to step down from office.

“A few days ago, I called on President Tinubu to resign from office for incompetence, lack of capacity, lack of compassion, and failure to improve on his campaign promises. Some people thought perhaps the call was excessive,” he said.

“But with the daily revelations of pervasive corruption in this administration and its total lack of commitment to the welfare and security of Nigerian citizens, the only reasonable action is for President Tinubu to resign from office.

“The collapse of elementary forms of due process under Tinubu and the increased evidence of rampant looting of Nigerian public finances reinforce the need for greater accountability. It is now time for Nigerian citizens to rise within the law and hold this administration to account.”

Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar had earlier called on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the allegation.

By Muhammad Muhammad Salisu Esq.

As Nigeria approaches the 2027 elections, the alliance between the Kwankwasiyya and Obidient movements is attracting significant attention. On paper, it looks like a powerful partnership. Kwankwasiyya has a strong following in Kano and much of the North, while the Obidient movement enjoys significant support among young people and urban voters, especially in the South.

Together, they could become a formidable political force. But there is a problem.

Both movements have increasingly developed a reputation for attacking critics, insulting opponents, and treating disagreement as betrayal. Politics is a game of persuasion, not intimidation. A movement that insults everyone outside its camp may excite its loyal supporters, but it will struggle to attract the undecided voters needed to win national elections.

The situation worsened when some Kwankwasiyya supporters recently made comments perceived as disrespectful toward the late Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto. For many Northerners, the Sardauna is not just a historical figure. He is regarded as one of the architects of modern Northern Nigeria, a leader who championed education, institution building, economic development, and regional unity.

Attacking such a widely respected figure is politically damaging. It alienates many Northerners who might otherwise be sympathetic to the movement and raises questions about the judgment of those involved.

This is why Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso needs to clearly distance himself from such attacks. In politics, silence is often interpreted as approval. A simple and firm defence of the Sardauna’s legacy would reassure many people that the movement respects Northern history and values.

The larger lesson is straightforward. No political movement can build a successful national coalition through insults, bullying, hostility, or attacks on respected historical figures. Winning elections requires discipline, maturity, tolerance, and respect for people who hold different opinions.

The Kwankwasiyya-Obidient alliance has the potential to become a serious national alternative. But potential alone is not enough. If both movements continue down the path of intolerance and political hostility, they risk pushing away the very voters they need.

The choice before Kwankwasiyya is simple: either grow into a movement capable of governing Nigeria or remain trapped in a cycle of unnecessary controversies and self-inflicted political wounds.

In the end, political movements are remembered not for how loudly their supporters shout, but for the wisdom, discipline, and judgment they display when it matters most.

Muhammad Muhammad Salisu Esq. wrote via muhammad.writes01@gmail.com.

By Uzair Adam

A chieftain of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Kenneth Okonkwo, has argued that any vote cast for former Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi in the 2027 election would ultimately work in favour of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s re-election.

Speaking during an interview on Symfoni TV, Okonkwo said the opposition must unite behind a single candidate if it hopes to defeat the incumbent president in the next general election.

According to him, a divided opposition would only increase Tinubu’s chances of securing another term in office.

“Whether directly or indirectly, anyone dividing opposition votes is helping Tinubu. When coalition and opposition votes are split, it places Tinubu in a stronger position to win,” he said.

Okonkwo also criticised Obi’s reported withdrawal from coalition discussions within the ADC, alleging that the former Anambra State governor was unwilling to participate in a competitive primary election.

“Nobody compelled Peter Obi to join the ADC. He joined voluntarily, but just a week before the deadline, he withdrew and explained his reasons.

“You cannot avoid a primary election and still expect to lead a country facing serious challenges. Leadership requires confronting challenges, not running away from them,” he stated.

The former Labour Party spokesperson further claimed that Senator Victor Umeh had previously suggested that the South-East’s best chance of producing a Nigerian president would be through a political alliance with northern leaders.

“When we were joining the ADC, Victor Umeh told me clearly that the best opportunity for the Igbo to produce a president was to align with the North, with Peter Obi serving as vice president,” Okonkwo alleged.

He further claimed that Umeh had informed him that Obi was not receptive to such advice.

“I asked him if he had discussed it with Obi. He said yes, but described Obi as stubborn, saying he would rather continue pursuing his own approach,” Okonkwo added.

Reiterating his position, Okonkwo urged opposition supporters to carefully consider the implications of their choices ahead of the 2027 presidential election.

“To be clear, anyone voting for Peter Obi in 2027 is indirectly voting for Tinubu. Remember that I said this,” he maintained.

His remarks come amid ongoing consultations and coalition talks among opposition parties and political stakeholders seeking a united front ahead of the 2027 presidential contest.

By Abubakar I. Hamisu

There is a peculiar cruelty in self-inflicted wounds. The African Democratic Congress entered the 2026 political season as perhaps the most consequential opposition force Nigeria has seen in years. Buoyed by the defection of high-profile figures, widespread disillusionment with the ruling establishment, and a genuine public appetite for an alternative, the party had accumulated a reservoir of goodwill that most Nigerian political parties can only dream of. Then came the primaries.

What unfolded in Kaduna State on 25th May 2026 — and in the disputed conduct surrounding it — offers a sobering case study in how a political party can, in a single act of institutional recklessness, begin to squander the very things that made it credible. The ADC must reckon with this honestly, because the consequences of continued evasion are not merely uncomfortable — they are potentially catastrophic.

I.  The Weight of Expectations

To appreciate the gravity of what is at stake, one must first understand what the ADC represented to millions of Nigerians before these primaries. Here was a party that loudly and repeatedly distinguished itself from the culture of impunity that has long characterised Nigerian party politics. Its guidelines for the conduct of primaries — detailed, comprehensive, and impressively structured — reflected an institutional seriousness rarely seen. Its rhetoric promised transparency where there had been opacity, fairness where there had been manipulation, and internal democracy where there had been imposition. Nigerians, understandably exhausted by the status quo, believed it.

That belief is now under acute stress. And the stress was entirely preventable.

II.  What Went Wrong in Kaduna

The documented record is damning. A formal petition filed by Prof. Muhammad Sani Bello, a cleared governorship aspirant, alleges the deployment of armed thugs at voting centres, systematic compromise of accreditation procedures, multiple voting by the same individuals, deliberate delays that disenfranchised legitimate party members, and partisan conduct by electoral officials. These are not vague grievances — they are specific, numbered allegations supported by agents’ reports, documentary evidence, and video recordings.

More significantly, none of this was unforeseeable. Malam Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai, the Kaduna State ADC leader, wrote an urgent letter to the party’s national leadership five days before the election, specifically warning that the composition of the Electoral Committee was compromised, that it included individuals aligned with particular interests, and that proceeding on that basis would produce rejection, division, and avoidable conflict. He recommended a restructured committee with equal representation of all aspirants and a neutral chairman. The party leadership ignored him.

This is not a mere procedural lapse. It is an institutional failure of the highest order — the failure to heed a timely, well-reasoned, written warning from a senior leader. When the predicted crisis materialised, the party had no defence of ignorance to fall back on.

III.  The Structural Contradictions

Beyond the specific allegations, the post-primary period has revealed structural contradictions that compound the problem. The ADC’s own Guidelines, issued under document reference ADC/NWC/PE/001/2026, prescribe a five-member Governorship Election Appeal Committee. The committee actually constituted for Kaduna State has only three members. This means the very body now tasked with adjudicating the petition may itself be improperly constituted under the party’s rules — a fact that could render any decision it makes susceptible to further challenge.

The Guidelines also specify that the Appeal Committee chairman must be a legal practitioner. Whether this requirement was met is a matter that deserves scrutiny. And critically, the Electoral Committee, whose conduct is under challenge, and the Appeal Committee now hearing the challenge, were both appointed by the same National Working Committee whose judgment El-Rufai had already called into question. The structural independence that credible adjudication requires is, at minimum, compromised in appearance, even if not in fact.

These are not technicalities. In a party whose entire brand proposition rests on institutional integrity, such contradictions between prescribed standards and actual practice are deeply corrosive.

IV.  The Broader Danger: Goodwill Is Not Infinite

Political goodwill operates on a logic similar to financial credit — it takes considerable time and consistent behaviour to build, and can be destroyed with alarming speed. The ADC’s current wave of support is real, but it is also fragile, because it is largely aspirational. People have not yet seen the ADC govern; they have invested hope in what it promises to be. That makes its conduct of internal processes not less important but more so, because right now, how the party treats its own members and aspirants is the only tangible evidence voters have of how it will treat citizens if it wins power.

A party that deploys thugs at its own primaries, that ignores the warnings of its own leaders, that constitutes committees in violation of its own guidelines, and that then routes complaints through an Appeal Committee of questionable constitution — that party is not offering voters an alternative to what they already know. It is offering them a more eloquently packaged version of the same thing.

If this perception takes hold, and it is already forming, the consequences will be severe. The ADC’s most valuable assets — the defectors from other parties, the civil society goodwill, the international attention, the young voters mobilising for the first time — are all conditional on the party remaining what it claims to be. Many of these stakeholders have alternatives. They can return to where they came from, or simply disengage entirely. A mass exodus triggered by disillusionment is not a dramatic possibility; it is a rational response to evidence.

V.  The Kaduna Dimension

Kaduna State deserves particular emphasis because it is not simply one state among many. It is a bellwether. It carries the political profile of El-Rufai, whose national name recognition and credibility were among the factors that drew attention to the ADC in the first place. A perception that his influence was marginalised — or worse, that the primary was conducted in a manner designed to sideline his preferred candidates — goes far beyond Kaduna. It sends a signal nationally about who actually controls the ADC’s machinery and whose interests it truly serves.

Kaduna is also a fiercely contested political environment where the ADC had genuine prospects for 2027. Those prospects depend entirely on the party presenting a united, credible front. Disputed primaries, unresolved grievances, and aspirants who feel wronged do not produce united fronts. They produce parallel campaigns, strategic withdrawals of support, and the kind of internal sabotage that Nigerian political parties know all too well.

VI.  The Legal Quagmire

If the internal appeals process fails to deliver justice — either because the Appeal Committee is improperly constituted, or because its decisions lack credibility, or because aggrieved parties escalate externally — the ADC risks entering a web of litigation that will dominate its pre-election period. Court injunctions against the use of a candidate’s name, challenges to the validity of the primary itself, and INEC-related complications arising from disputed results could paralyse the party’s 2027 campaign machinery at the state and national level simultaneously. Nigerian political litigation moves slowly enough that cases filed today can remain unresolved on election day — and an unresolved cloud over a governorship candidate is a gift to opponents.

The ADC’s own Guidelines warn against this explicitly, noting that internal disputes that escalate to court will distract from the electoral mission. That warning is now prophetic.

VII.  What the ADC Must Do

The path forward is not mysterious. The Appeal Committee must act with courage and genuine independence, not as an instrument of ratification for a flawed outcome. If the evidence supports the allegations — and the documented record suggests it substantially does — the committee must say so, clearly and without equivocation. A fresh, properly supervised primary must be ordered.

Beyond Kaduna, the NWC must conduct an honest national audit of how primaries were conducted across other states, and address systemic lapses before they become the subject of additional petitions, legal challenges, and media narratives. The party’s monitoring teams, whose reports must exist, should be scrutinised to understand how these irregularities were either missed or not acted upon.

Most fundamentally, the party must demonstrate — through action, not rhetoric — that its institutional promises are real. Every grievance left unaddressed, every irregular committee decision left standing, every warning from senior leaders left unheeded, chips away at the one thing that no political party can afford to lose and easily regain: the presumption that it is different.

Conclusion

The ADC is at a crossroads that is more consequential than it may yet fully appreciate. The 2027 general elections represent a genuine opportunity to reshape Nigerian politics in ways that matter. But opportunities of this kind are not permanent. They expire. They expire when the public concludes that a party promising change is, in its internal conduct, indistinguishable from what came before.

The clumsy handling of the Kaduna gubernatorial primary is not merely an administrative embarrassment. It is a test of institutional character. Nigerians are watching — not just the outcome of the petition, but how the party responds to it. The ADC still has time to show that its guidelines are not decorative documents, that its leaders’ warnings are not ignored, and that its members’ votes are not disposable commodities. But that time is not unlimited, and it is running.

Sources & References

This essay is an independent commentary based on the following documents: ADC Guidelines for the Conduct of Primary Elections (April 2026, Ref: ADC/NWC/PE/001/2026); Petition by Prof. Muhammad Sani Bello against the conduct of the Kaduna State Governorship Primary Election (27th May 2026); Urgent Message to ADC National Leadership by Malam Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai (20th May 2026, ICPC Detention Day 94); ADC Process and Procedure Guide to Electoral Committee Members issued by the National Organising Secretary; State Electoral and Appeal Committees for Kaduna State issued by the ADC National Publicity Secretary.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Peter Obi, former governor of Anambra State and presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), has pledged to raise Nigeria’s electricity generation capacity to 10,000 megawatts if elected president in the 2027 general elections.

Obi made the promise on Saturday in Abuja after emerging as the NDC’s sole presidential candidate at the party’s national convention, where his nomination was formally ratified.

In his acceptance speech, he criticised the country’s current power situation, describing it as unacceptable for a nation of over 200 million people to remain at a generation level of about 4,000 megawatts.

He said Nigeria’s electricity output falls far below what is recorded in some other major African economies.

“It is totally unacceptable. Today, Nigeria is a country with the highest number of citizens without access to electricity in the whole world. About 100 million Nigerians don’t have access to electricity,” he said.

“In today’s world, it is unacceptable. A country of over 200 million people only generates and distributes 4,000 (megawatts)

“The biggest economies in Africa— South Africa and Egypt — generate over 40,000 megawatts today.

“So we are not even producing 10% of what these two African nations are producing and distributing. Both of them are less than 50% of our population and they generate 10 times the electricity we generate. These are African countries.

“It is unacceptable. It cannot happen. And I pledge on behalf of our government that in four years, this country will generate and distribute at least 10,000 megawatts from the 4,000 they are doing today.”

Obi also faulted official unemployment figures released by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), particularly the 4.3 percent rate reported for the second quarter of 2024, saying it does not reflect the reality faced by Nigerians.

He said his administration would prioritise job creation through support for small businesses and targeted incentives aimed at expanding economic opportunities.

Meanwhile, data from the federal government in April 2026 showed a slight improvement in electricity generation, which rose from 3,951 megawatts on March 28 to over 4,300 megawatts by April 10.

By Usman Muhammad Salihu

In Nigerian politics, defections are no longer surprising. What is surprising now is how quickly they happen and how easily political actors move from one platform to another.

The recent defection of Peter Obi and Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso from the African Democratic Congress (ADC) to the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) is not just another political adjustment. It is a bold move. But bold does not always mean safe.

At first glance, the decision appears strategic. Internal crises within the ADC, legal uncertainties, and the pressure of electoral timelines make stability a priority. From that angle, shifting to a new platform may seem like a necessary step, an attempt to secure political ground ahead of a highly competitive 2027.

There is also strength in the alliance itself. The coming together of Obi and Kwankwaso brings national attention, regional balance, and an existing base of supporters. On paper, that is not just movement; it is potential consolidation.

But politics is not played on paper. It is played among the people. And this is where the real challenge begins.

The Nigeria Democratic Congress is still largely unfamiliar to many Nigerians. Beyond political circles and elite discussions, its presence at the grassroots remains limited. For a significant number of voters, especially at the lower levels, NDC is not yet a known political identity.

And in Nigerian elections, familiarity matters. Voters do not just choose candidates. They choose what they recognise. They choose what they trust. They choose what they understand. That is the gap this move must overcome.

Beyond visibility, there are emerging concerns about the platform’s stability. Reports suggest that the Nigerian Democratic Congress may be grappling with internal legal disputes. If proven true, this introduces an even more delicate risk. Moving from one troubled platform to another does not resolve instability; it simply transfers it. And in politics, uncertainty is a cost few can afford at this level.

Because this is no longer just about transferring political influence, it is about building voter awareness from the ground up within a limited time frame. That is not a small task. It is one thing to move with loyalists. It is another thing to move with the electorate. And history has shown that the two do not always align.

There is also a deeper concern. Frequent political movement, no matter how strategic, raises questions of consistency. When platforms change too often, voters begin to look beyond the movement itself and ask a more difficult question: What exactly is constant? Is it ideology? Is it vision? Or is it simply positioning?

These questions matter because today’s voter is less passive than before. There is growing awareness, scrutiny, and an expectation for clarity. So while this move may be necessary from a political standpoint, it is also risky from a public perception angle.

Because speed in politics can be a double-edged sword. Move too slowly, and you lose relevance. Move too quickly, and you lose trust. And right now, this move feels fast. Perhaps calculated. Perhaps unavoidable. But still fast.

So, is this a strategy or a survival tactic? It is arguably both. Strategy, because the timing aligns with political realities. Survival, because unstable platforms leave little room for hesitation.

From another angle, this move is not just a strategy or a matter of survival; it is a gamble. A calculated one, no doubt, but a gamble, nonetheless. It rests on the assumption that political influence can be transferred faster than voter trust can be built. And in a system where recognition often shapes voting decisions, that assumption may prove too optimistic.

But beyond both lies a more uncomfortable possibility: That this could be a leap into a platform that has yet to fully exist in the minds of the people. Because, in the end, political strength is not measured by alliances alone, but by acceptance. And acceptance cannot be transferred overnight.

So, while the move may look bold in Abuja, its real test will come far away from strategy rooms, in markets, in villages, and at the polling units. Where names are remembered, where symbols are recognised, and where unfamiliar platforms are often rejected.

And if that gap is not closed in time, what appears today as a strategy may tomorrow be seen as a miscalculation. Because in Nigerian politics, you can move ahead of the system, but you cannot move ahead of the people. And when that gap exists, even the most calculated move can quickly turn into a costly gamble.

Ultimately, this move will be judged by one metric: conversion rate. How many Obidients and Kwankwasiyya become NDC members, not just in spirit but on the ballot? If the answer is “most,” then history will call it strategy. If the answer is “some,” then it was survival. If the answer is “few,” then it was a miscalculation dressed as ambition. The voters are watching, and their silence right now is louder than any endorsement. For Obi and Kwankwaso, the real campaign did not start in Abuja. It starts the day a trader in Aba and a farmer in Gaya can point to the NDC logo and say, “That is us.”

Usman Muhammad Salihu was among the pioneer fellows of PRNigeria and writes from Jos.

muhammadu5363@gmail.com.

By Abdulhamid Abdullahi Aliyu

As Nigeria moves gradually toward the 2027 general election, the most consequential political drama may not be unfolding within the ruling party, but among those seeking to unseat it. Across the opposition space, there is visible movement: coalition talks, strategic meetings, defections, counter-defections, legal disputes and renewed ambitions. Yet beneath all the activity lies an old and stubborn question: can Nigeria’s opposition finally unite around a credible alternative, or will familiar rivalries once again deliver victory to the incumbent?

The latest controversy surrounding Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso’s political future has brought that question sharply into focus. Reports recently circulated that the former Kano State governor and his political associates were considering leaving the African Democratic Congress (ADC) for another platform, the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), citing fears that the ADC had become vulnerable to legal complications and possible political sabotage. The speculation intensified after statements from individuals linked to the Kwankwasiyya movement suggested fresh political calculations were underway.

Kwankwaso himself later issued a clarification. He stated that no final decision had been taken regarding his political future or that of his associates, while confirming that consultations were ongoing with stakeholders across multiple parties. It was a carefully worded intervention. It neither closed the door to the ADC nor ruled out future movement elsewhere. In effect, it confirmed what many political observers already suspected: Nigeria’s opposition remains in a season of negotiation rather than consolidation.

For many Nigerians dissatisfied with the current direction of governance, the ADC had recently emerged as a possible umbrella for a broad anti-incumbent coalition. With the Peoples Democratic Party weakened by years of internal crisis and the Labour Party still struggling to convert popularity into a nationwide structure, the ADC appeared to offer something useful: a relatively fresh platform around which major opposition actors could gather.

But Nigerian political history offers a warning. Coalitions are easiest to announce and hardest to sustain.

The challenge before the ADC was never simply about attracting prominent names. It was always about managing them. Once major political figures occupy the same platform, difficult questions naturally arise. Who gets the presidential ticket? Which region should produce the candidate? Who controls party machinery? Who funds mobilisation? Who steps down for whom? These are not procedural details. They are often the very fault lines that break apart coalitions.

Kwankwaso’s position illustrates this reality. He remains one of the most significant opposition actors in northern Nigeria, with a loyal political base that has survived multiple party transitions. The Kwankwasiyya movement has demonstrated unusual cohesion and emotional commitment over the years. That makes him valuable to any coalition seeking national competitiveness.

Yet his role also generates tension. Admirers see him as experienced, disciplined and electorally relevant. Critics see him as a strategic power broker whose bargaining posture can complicate broader unity efforts. Social media reactions to the latest controversy reflect this divide. Some accuse him of prioritising leverage over coalition stability. Others argue that he is merely refusing to lead his supporters into another uncertain political arrangement.

Both arguments contain elements of truth. No serious opposition coalition can ignore Kwankwaso’s political weight. But no coalition can thrive if every major actor insists on maximum personal advantage.

Peter Obi presents a different but equally important dimension of the opposition equation. He commands strong youth enthusiasm, urban support and reform-minded voters who remain deeply invested in his message. His appeal extends beyond conventional party structures and taps into a wider demand for cleaner governance and fiscal discipline.

But Obi’s popularity also raises difficult coalition questions. Can a politician with genuine national momentum agree to play a subordinate role in a unity arrangement? Can rival blocs accept him as lead candidate? Can supporters who see him as a transformative figure embrace compromise for strategic reasons?

This is where opposition politics in Nigeria repeatedly encounters its greatest obstacle. Many leaders endorse unity in theory, but hesitate when unity demands sacrifice in practice.

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Kwankwaso’s recent statement was the emphasis on legal uncertainty. He referenced court rulings, disputes over party legitimacy and fears that political platforms could be weakened through prolonged litigation. Whether one accepts that interpretation or not, the perception itself is politically significant.

In politics, uncertainty can be as damaging as defeat. If opposition actors begin to believe that party platforms are unstable or vulnerable, they will spend more time shopping for alternatives than building durable institutions. Time that should be used to mobilise voters gets consumed by legal consultations. Energy that should be spent presenting policy alternatives is diverted into internal survival battles.

While opposition figures debate platforms and personalities, the ruling All Progressives Congress quietly benefits from something often underestimated in Nigerian politics: structure. Incumbency provides access to nationwide networks, state-level influence, mobilisation machinery and the psychological confidence that comes with power.

The APC does not necessarily need the opposition to disappear. It only needs the opposition to remain divided.

That is why many analysts argue that the greatest ally of incumbency is not popularity, but fragmentation among rivals. If 2027 becomes a contest between one organised ruling machine and several competing opposition ambitions, the arithmetic naturally favours the government. If it becomes a disciplined one-on-one contest built around a credible coalition, the political equation changes considerably.

The decline of the PDP has made this moment even more significant. Once the dominant national platform for anti-government sentiment, the party now appears burdened by unresolved disputes, declining elite confidence and repeated internal turbulence. That vacuum created the opening for newer coalition experiments such as the ADC.

But replacing the PDP as a headline platform is easier than replacing it as an electoral structure. National parties are built ward by ward, polling unit by polling unit, not merely through high-profile defections and conference-room agreements. The opposition still lacks a clearly dominant institutional vehicle.

If opposition leaders are serious about challenging the APC in 2027, three urgent tasks stand before them. First, they must settle on a credible platform early and avoid endless migration between parties. Constant movement signals instability to voters. Second, they must resolve leadership questions through transparent negotiation rather than ego-driven public contests. Third, they must move beyond elite arithmetic and present a practical agenda on inflation, jobs, insecurity, electricity and governance reform.

Many Nigerians are frustrated with present realities. But frustration alone does not automatically translate into votes for the opposition. Citizens may desire change and still distrust the alternatives before them.

The latest Kwankwaso controversy is therefore not merely about one politician considering another party. It is about a deeper truth in Nigerian politics: opposition forces often agree on what they oppose, but struggle to agree on what they want to build.

That remains the central dilemma of 2027.

If unity prevails, the election could become genuinely competitive. If ambition prevails, the ruling party may receive another gift from its opponents—without having to ask for one.

Abdulhamid Abdullahi Aliyu is a journalist and syndicate writer based in Abuja.

By Abdullahi Mukhtar Algasgaini

Former Kano State Governor, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, and former presidential candidate, Peter Obi, are reportedly planning to exit the African Democratic Congress (ADC), according to sources close to the matter.

Political insiders revealed that former President Olusegun Obasanjo is spearheading efforts to forge a political alliance between the two prominent opposition figures. The move is seen as part of a broader realignment strategy ahead of the 2027 presidential election.

Tensions rose earlier today when some of Kwankwaso’s key political associates, known as the Kwankwasiyya movement, were seen defecting from the ADC in the morning.

This development comes at a critical time as the country edges closer to the 2027 general elections, with top politicians scrambling to reposition themselves for maximum political leverage.