Nigeria, ethnically diverse, religiously plural, and regionally unequal in development, stands today at a critical juncture. Yet, the bonds that have kept the country together for over six decades have not been its ethnicities or religions, but a deliberate, if sometimes imperfect, effort by successive leaders to embrace the idea of Nigerianism: the recognition that the country is greater than the sum of its parts.
As the 2027 elections approach, it is imperative and a matter of national survival, that Nigeria elects not a sectional champion, but a unifying president who can stabilize the polity and restore balance to an increasingly fractured federation.
Since independence in 1960, Nigeria’s survival as a nation has hinged on its leaders’ ability to transcend parochial interests. Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa’s coalition government, built on the alliance between the Northern People’s Congress (NPC) and the National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC), set a precedent for inclusive governance. His cabinet, reflective of the country’s diversity, aimed to accommodate varying regional and ethnic sensibilities. This spirit of coalition was not out of convenience but a necessity and a recognition that no region or group could dominate Nigeria and expect peace.
Even during the tumultuous military years, successive heads of state—from General Yakubu Gowon to General Abdulsalami Abubakar—maintained a national outlook. Gowon’s post-civil war “No Victor, No Vanquished” policy, coupled with his famous “3Rs” (Reconciliation, Rehabilitation, and Reconstruction), aimed at healing national wounds. He appointed Nigerians from across regions into sensitive positions to demonstrate that unity was a core tenet of statecraft.
General Murtala Mohammed and General Olusegun Obasanjo’s military regime continued this trend. Despite being short-lived, Murtala’s government set up structures that would later lay the foundation for federal integrity. Obasanjo, in overseeing a transition to civilian rule in 1979, ensured that no region felt alienated in the new republic. These military regimes, for all their shortcomings, respected the essence of national balance, evident in appointments, national projects, and even the spread of educational institutions and military formations.
The civilian government of President Shehu Shagari under the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) further cemented the ethos of Nigerianism. NPN, by design, was a national platform, recruiting leaders from all zones of the country. Shagari’s appointments, policies, and projects were consciously spread across regions. The sense of inclusion this created helped stabilize the country’s fledgling democracy, even if only temporarily.
Following the 1983 coup, General Muhammadu Buhari, General Ibrahim Babangida, General Sani Abacha, and General Abdulsalami Abubakar continued the tradition of maintaining a federal outlook. The Armed Forces Ruling Council and Provisional Ruling Council, though militarized, still ensured regional representations. These regimes also created state institutions like the Federal Character Commission and Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission to institutionalize balance and equity in the country. The military also introduced another stabilizing measure: the creation of six geopolitical zones. Even during moments of crisis, such as the annulment of the June 12, 1993 election and the rise of ethnic militia groups, these military regimes prevented outright disintegration.
The return to democracy in 1999 saw the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) take a historic step by introducing a zoning formula. This internal arrangement ensured a rotation of power between North and South and among geopolitical zones, fostering a sense of belonging. President Olusegun Obasanjo appointed ministers and aides from every part of the country. Even when power projects appeared to favor the South, the balance in federal appointments and other capital projects was maintained.
President Yaradua continued this trajectory. His seven-point agenda touched all zones, and his cabinet was as inclusive as any since independence. The choice of Goodluck Jonathan, from the Niger Delta, as his vice president was itself a balancing act that later helped quell the militancy in the region.
Jonathan’s presidency marked the peak of inclusive governance. Under his watch, projects like the Almajiri education initiative in the North, road construction in the Southeast, and agricultural reforms in the Middle Belt demonstrated a broad national vision. The Niger Delta amnesty program, conceived under Yar’Adua and expanded by Jonathan, helped stabilize a key region. Political appointments reflected the diversity of the Nigerian state. No region felt deliberately shut out.
In markets, schools, religious houses, and workplaces, Nigerians coexist peacefully. Intermarriages, cultural exchanges, and commerce bind citizens more than politicians admit. The real source of division is the political elite, who whip up ethnic and religious sentiments for personal gain. Where the people seek unity, the politicians stoke discord. The difference, as history shows, lies in leadership. Nigerians are followers of symbols—when the leader is unifying, so is the nation.
However, this delicate balance has been upended by the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. With appointments heavily skewed—reportedly over 70% favoring the Southwest and individuals of Yoruba origin even outside that region—the principles of federal character have been shredded. From key cabinet positions to heads of federal agencies, the dominance of one ethnic group raises alarm bells.
Even economic empowerment initiatives such as the CNG conversion centers have exhibited regional bias. Attempts to defend these actions, including by some from the Federal Character Commission, miss the point: in a federal, multiethnic state like Nigeria, perception is as powerful as reality. Why should a president presiding over a fragile federation concentrate power in one ethnic group?
This is not merely about appointments, it is about the erosion of national trust. As Nigeria struggles with inflation, insecurity, and ethnic agitations, its president appears more focused on consolidating ethnic power than building national consensus. With his tenure approaching halftime, there is little indication that this trajectory will change. On the contrary, the fear is that more exclusionary policies will be entrenched.
If the current government secures a second term in 2027, the fear is not just of continued marginalization, it is the risk of internal colonialism. When one group dominates political, economic, and institutional levers of power in a multiethnic nation, it ceases to be a federation and begins to resemble a conquest state.
Nigeria cannot afford this. The modest gains made since independence are already under threat. What Nigeria needs is a unifier, a Bismarck-like figure, not in power accumulation, but in power balancing. A leader who sees the country as a mosaic of equal parts and who governs with empathy, fairness, and wisdom.
As 2027 approaches, Nigerians must reject ethnic champions, religious bigots, or personal rulers. The next president must be a stabilizer, a healer, not a divider. Someone who will re-inspire faith in the idea of Nigeria. A person whose cabinet reflects the nation, whose policies mend broken trust, and whose words soothe rather than inflame. It is not just about politics anymore, WALLAHI! It is about survival. And only a unifier can lead Nigeria away from the brink.
Tinubu has manifested himself as a divider of the nation favoring only his Yoruba siblings. His administration demonstrate the highest level of national marginalization ever. I pray that Nigerians from across all regions, all ethnic groups and religion repeat not the same mistake in the 2027 general elections.