Nigerians were inundated with hagiographical accounts of Bola Tinubu as a master strategist. For years, an elaborate narrative was constructed around the man now occupying Nigeria’s highest office. Admirers, political allies, and an extensive network of loyalists projected him as a political chess grandmaster, one who supposedly understood the mechanics of power better than anyone else in the country. According to these portrayals, he was not only a brilliant tactician but also a visionary capable of steering Nigeria out of its many crises.
But as the months and years of his presidency have unfolded, a different picture has emerged. The carefully crafted myth has struggled to withstand the test of governance. Increasingly, Nigerians are beginning to realize that the story told about him were exaggerated beyond recognition. The phrase that best captures the growing public sentiment is simple: the lights are on, but nobody is home.
Economically, these hagiographies presented Tinubu as something of a financial wizard. His tenure as governor of Lagos State was often cited as proof that he possessed a rare understanding of economic management. He was portrayed as a reformer who could replicate the so-called Lagos miracle on a national scale. Many Nigerians, desperate for economic stability and opportunity, were willing to believe that narrative.
Yet the economic reality under his administration tells a far harsher story. Instead of the promised transformation, Nigeria’s economy has endured severe disruption. The president’s approach has largely been defined by trial-and-error policies, measures introduced impulsively and without the careful planning that such a fragile economy demands. Decisions that should have been guided by rigorous analysis appear to have been taken in haste.
Even more troubling is the perception that national development under this administration is being disproportionately oriented toward Lagos. The suspicion that government policy is designed to concentrate investment and opportunity in one state while the rest of the country struggles has fueled deep resentment across Nigeria’s diverse federation. Whether deliberate or not, the outcome has been an economy that leaves millions behind.
Today, the consequences are stark. By many estimates, not less than 170 million Nigerians live below the poverty line. This is not merely a statistic but a national tragedy. Families struggle daily to secure food, healthcare, and education. Small businesses collapse under inflationary pressures. Young people, unable to find meaningful opportunities at home, increasingly seek escape through migration.
Yet amid these realities, the president and his associates continue to rely on public relations narratives. It seems that the Bretton Wood institutions have been enlisted to provide favorable messaging suggesting that Nigeria’s economy has bounced back. However, the actual figures available in the databases of these same institutions contradict the optimistic claims repeated by government officials. The data, when examined closely, angrily challenge the president’s insistence that the economy is on a clear path to recovery.
If the economic situation is troubling, the security landscape is even more alarming. Nigeria has never been so insecure, not even during the civil war. During that tragic chapter in the nation’s history, the conflict was largely confined to a specific region. Today, insecurity appears everywhere. From the North-West to the North-East, from the North Central to parts of the South, violence has become a persistent feature of daily life.
Whenever criticism of the government’s handling of security arises, defenders of the administration quickly offer a familiar argument that the president inherited a mess from his predecessors forgetting it was an APC president that governed before him. While there may be some truth in the claim that Nigeria’s security challenges did not begin with this administration, it does not answer the fundamental question. Where is the master strategist?
If the president truly possessed the extraordinary strategic ability attributed to him, Nigerians would expect to see signs of a coherent and decisive security response. Instead, the country’s security architecture appears increasingly grounded and ineffective. Criminal groups move with alarming freedom. Communities remain vulnerable. Citizens feel abandoned by institutions meant to protect them. In fact, these institutions now turn against the citizens they are meant to protect whenever they criticize the president.
On foreign policy, the president offers little reassurance. Regionally, internationally, and even in relations with Nigeria’s immediate neighbors, the administration’s approach has been widely criticized as inconsistent and poorly coordinated. A key factor appears to be the president’s insulation from ideas and honest technical advice within the foreign ministry. When leadership isolates itself from professional expertise, policy inevitably suffers.
The result has been what many observers describe as diplomatic missteps. The president’s application of what might be called “stick diplomacy” within the ECOWAS system has been particularly controversial. ECOWAS was a project Nigeria helped birth, nurture, and promote for decades. It represented one of the country’s most significant contributions to regional stability and cooperation. Yet, Tinubu’s chairmanship strained the organization in ways that split it and hindered its effectiveness.
Relations with immediate neighbors have also produced little that inspires confidence. Aside from the foiling of a coup attempt in the Republic of Benin, an episode that some critics argue served the president’s personal political interests more than Nigeria’s national interest, there is little to celebrate in the country’s diplomatic engagements.
At the international level, particularly within the United Nations system, Nigeria’s presence appears diminished. The president’s absence from key global conversations raises an important question: why is Nigeria retreating from arenas where its voice once carried significant weight? A country of Nigeria’s size and influence cannot afford diplomatic invisibility.
Subsidiary to these concerns is another issue that has generated growing debate: the perception that Nigeria’s sovereignty is being compromised. Since independence in 1960, the protection of national sovereignty has been a core national interest. Yet the president’s apparent paranoia and unease about threats to his person have led to decisions that some interpret as ceding elements of that sovereignty to the United States.
The arrival of U.S. troops on Nigerian soil, under whatever justification, is a development with far-reaching implications. Once such arrangements are established, they rarely remain temporary. Nigerians must therefore reflect carefully on the long-term consequences of allowing foreign military presence within their borders.
History offers cautionary lessons. In the Gulf region, several states entered into security partnerships with the United States under pressure to counter perceived threats such as Saddam Hussein. Over time, these partnerships led to the establishment of permanent military bases. Today, these same states find themselves entangled in conflicts and regional rivalries that were never originally their own. Bombardments from Iran, for instance, now threaten countries that once believed such alliances would provide deterrence and guarantee security and stability. Nigeria must, therefore, tread cautiously to avoid similar entanglements.
Politically, the president appears most comfortable operating in the terrain of power. It is here that his reputation as a strategist was forged. Yet even in this sphere, his actions have undermined his own legacy. Extreme nepotism and favoritism have overshadowed whatever political skill he may possess.
Perhaps the most damaging development is the perception that the administration has elevated a Yoruba supremacy agenda within national politics. Nigeria is a complex federation of many ethnicities and identities, and any attempt to privilege one group above others inevitably fuels suspicion and resentment.
The president’s favoritism toward Lagos in the allocation of projects and national attention reinforces these concerns. What should be national development increasingly appears regionalized. Meanwhile, divide-and-rule tactics have deepened social tensions to levels not seen since Nigeria gained independence in 1960.
In the end, leadership is not judged by myth or propaganda but by results. Nigerians were told they were getting a master strategist, a visionary reformer, and a political genius capable of navigating the country’s many challenges. What they have experienced instead is a presidency marked by economic hardship, pervasive insecurity, diplomatic missteps, and political and social division. Thus, the carefully cultivated image has now collided with reality. Nigerians, after watching closely, have now seen what the president has got and are waiting to give verdict come 2027.
