Nigeria’s presidential politics is often presented as a broad democratic marketplace, yet in practice it remains a ruthless contest governed not by sentiment or noise, but by structure, by coalition discipline, and by the unforgiving arithmetic of nationwide appeal. It is precisely this reality that was ignored in 2023, when what should have been a consolidated opposition challenge instead dissolved into fragmented ambitions that finally cleared the path for Malam Bola Tinubu.
At the center of that fragmentation were Peter Obi and Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso. Their candidacies, no matter how passionately defended, did not expand the opposition’s chances. Instead, they divided its strength and weakened what could have been a unified front. What might have emerged as a competitive national coalition was reduced to a scattered electoral effort that lacked the breadth required to win power in a country as politically complex as Nigeria.
The evidence, when examined without emotional attachment, is straightforward and difficult to dispute. Peter Obi’s overwhelming dominance in the South East, where he secured close to ninety percent of approximately 2.1 million votes, was never in itself a pathway to victory. It was a regional concentration that exposed his inability to scale nationally. Of course, he took Lagos and some other states, but he came a distant third. Kwankwaso’s command of Kano, though significant, revealed equally sharp limitations. Once one moves beyond that single stronghold into the wider northern and national landscape, his influence thins considerably. He had a little over a quarter of a million outside this comfort zone.
What emerged from this dual candidacy was not a diversified opposition, as some would prefer to argue, but a fractured one. Votes that might have been consolidated into a single viable challenge were dispersed across parallel ambitions, weakening overall coherence. This dispersion lowered the threshold required for victory and, in practical terms, handed a strategic advantage to the ruling current President, and the current disaster Nigeria is going through.
If that mistake could be excused in 2023 as miscalculation or overconfidence, it becomes far more difficult to justify as Nigeria approaches 2027, particularly in light of the opportunities that have since emerged for genuine coalition-building through the platform of the African Democratic Congress. Many Nigerians increasingly view it not as just another party, but as the necessary vehicle for disciplined opposition capable of translating public dissatisfaction into electoral success.
Yet, even within this emerging framework, the same patterns of political self-interest continue to surface, most notably in the inconsistent engagement of these figures who appear unwilling to submit themselves to a collective process unless it guarantees them personal advantage. This posture raises legitimate concerns about whether the rhetoric of national interest is being deployed as a cover for narrower ambitions that eventually undermine the very objective they claim to pursue.
This is why ADC’s forthcoming primaries, already slated for May 25, 2026, carry significance far beyond the routine selection of a candidate. They represent a decisive test of whether Nigeria’s opposition has learned anything from the consequences of its previous disunity. They also test whether those who seek to lead are prepared to earn that leadership through open contest. Or whether they will continue to rely on negotiation from a position of entitlement rather than genuine democratic competition.
What is emerging, encouragingly, is a clearer distinction between two types of political actors. On one hand are those who are ready to subject themselves to the discipline of the democratic process and understand that leadership must be contested rather than conceded. These actors are prepared to test their strength within a structured primary and accept its outcome as legitimate. On the other hand are those who appear more interested in being accommodated, negotiated into position, or effectively spoon-fed candidacies without undergoing the rigors of genuine competition. These groups have left the party to National Democratic Congress.
The former group represents what can properly be called democrats in both form and substance, because they accept that no individual is bigger than the process and that legitimacy flows from contestation. They understand that leadership must be earned through open competition rather than assumed through informal arrangement or elite consensus. The latter group, by contrast, risks reinforcing the very culture of political entitlement that has repeatedly weakened opposition efforts. This tendency prioritizes personal positioning over collective viability and finally undermines the discipline required for electoral success.
If the primaries are conducted with seriousness and integrity, what should follow is not fragmentation but consolidation. Once a candidate emerges through a credible process, the expectation, indeed the obligation, is that all serious actors within that ADC will rally behind the winner. Personal grievances must be set aside in recognition of the larger objective of building a viable national alternative. Without that discipline, even the most promising opposition effort risks repeating the same cycle of division and defeat.
Anything less than that would not merely repeat the errors of 2023, it would confirm a deeper unwillingness to evolve. It would signal an insistence on recycling strategies that have already proven ineffective in our presidential elections. It would also reflect a troubling preference for symbolic participation over actual victory. In practical terms, it would amount to choosing visibility over power, and repetition over learning.
Eventually, the distinction between contestants and spoilers will once again define the 2027 election. While many may appear on the ballot, only a few will truly be positioned to compete actually. They will actively shape the outcome by redistributing votes in ways that advantage incumbent.
Nigeria does not suffer from a lack of political actors. However, it suffers from a recurring failure to coordinate them effectively. Unless that changes, the cycle of fragmentation followed by defeat will continue. This will remain true regardless of how compelling individual candidacies may appear in isolation. What is missing is not ambition, but disciplined alignment around a shared electoral strategy.
The lesson is neither subtle nor new, but it is one that must be confronted directly. In a system where unity is the currency of victory, those who repeatedly choose division cannot escape responsibility for the outcomes that follow. This also remains true regardless of how persuasively their intentions are framed in public discourse. Finally, rhetoric cannot substitute for coordination, and participation without alignment will continue to produce predictable political consequences.
