ATIKU AND THE SOUTH-WEST: Must Nigerians endure bad governance in the name of either years?
By OLA AMURE
A Yoruba person who supports a candidate simply because that candidate is Yoruba, irrespective of performance, is not necessarily protecting Yoruba interests. Similarly, supporting a candidate because he is a Northerner does not automatically advance Northern interests.
As Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections, one argument gaining traction in parts of the South-West is that the region must be allowed to complete its eight years in the presidency before power returns to the North. While political rotation may promote a sense of fairness and national inclusion, we must ask a fundamental question: Must Nigerians endure poverty, hunger, insecurity, unemployment and economic hardship simply because one region believes it has an entitlement to eight years in power?
Democracy is not a reward for geographical location or ethnic identity. It is a social contract between the people and their elected leaders. When that contract fails to deliver security, prosperity and a reasonable standard of living, the electorate must retain the freedom to seek an alternative.
The presidency is not the inheritance of any region, ethnic group or political family. Although rotational arrangements may serve a useful political purpose, they cannot reasonably become a justification for asking millions of suffering Nigerians to postpone their search for better governance.
If a government has performed creditably, its achievements should speak for it. If it has failed, its supporters should present convincing evidence of improvement rather than appeal exclusively to regional sentiment. Why should a hungry Nigerian be asked to vote for continued hardship because the President comes from his or her region?
THE DANGER OF ETHNIC BIGOTRY
There is a Yoruba proverb often invoked to defend ethnic loyalty: “Ọmọ ẹni kì í ṣe ìdí rìbẹ̀rẹ̀bẹ̀ ká fi sí ti omo elòmíràn.” It is generally understood to mean that one should not abandon one’s own child in favour of another person’s child.
Although the proverb reflects the natural affection parents have for their children, should we apply it uncritically to the choice of a national leader? Is the presidency our biological child, or a public trust to be exercised for the benefit of every Nigerian?
A Yoruba person who supports a candidate simply because that candidate is Yoruba, irrespective of performance, is not necessarily protecting Yoruba interests. Similarly, supporting a candidate because he is a Northerner does not automatically advance Northern interests.
Our loyalty should first be to Nigeria and the welfare of its citizens. If another person’s child is more competent, more accountable and better prepared to serve the public, why should we reject that child merely because of parentage?
The proper political question is not, “Who is our son?” It is, “Who can govern Nigeria better?”
The South-West must not allow ethnic sentiment to overshadow the urgent need for economic recovery, effective security, employment opportunities, affordable food and accountable leadership.
MUST ATIKU’S FULANI IDENTITY DETERMINE OUR VOTE?
Another concern expressed by some people is that electing Atiku Abubakar, a Fulani man, could encourage the infiltration of Fulani herdsmen into the South-West and worsen insecurity.
This argument confuses ethnic identity with criminal conduct. Criminality has no exclusive ethnic ownership, and no ethnic group should be collectively condemned for the actions of individuals.
The fear of armed herders, kidnappers and violent criminal groups is understandable. Communities across Nigeria have suffered grievously, and their demand for protection is legitimate. However, the solution is not to reject a presidential candidate simply because he shares an ethnic identity with some perpetrators of violence.
The proper questions are: What is the candidate’s security policy? Will his administration protect farmers and their livelihoods? Will it investigate attacks, prosecute offenders, compensate victims where appropriate and prevent the unlawful occupation of farmland? Will the law apply equally to every Nigerian, regardless of ethnic background?
These are the standards by which Atiku, Tinubu and every other presidential candidate should be judged.
Atiku has previously rejected allegations that his Fulani identity would make him favour his ethnic group over other Nigerians. In September 2025, he publicly assured the Yoruba that their interests would be protected under his proposed presidency.
Such assurances should not be accepted blindly. They should be tested against clear policy commitments, enforceable security measures and a demonstrated willingness to hold offenders accountable. Nevertheless, neither should they be dismissed merely because of his ancestry.
We should fear a leader who protects criminals, not a leader whose ethnic identity differs from ours.
THE ALLEGATION THAT ATIKU SOLD NIGERIA ASSETS TO HIS FRIENDS
One persistent criticism of Atiku is that, as Vice-President and Chairman of the National Council on Privatisation under President Olusegun Obasanjo, he facilitated the sale of national assets to friends and associates.
This is a serious allegation that deserves a factual, rather than emotional, response.
First, Atiku was Vice-President, not President. He chaired the National Council on Privatisation, but the privatisation programme operated through government institutions and prescribed decision-making procedures. It is therefore important to distinguish his individual decisions from decisions taken collectively by the relevant institutions.
The fact that a person chaired a committee does not automatically establish that every decision made under its authority was that person’s personal decision, nor does it prove that the chairperson personally benefited from the transaction.
However, collective decision-making does not automatically absolve a chairperson of responsibility for any proven misconduct. If credible evidence establishes that Atiku personally abused his position, improperly influenced a transaction or benefited unlawfully, he should answer for it like any other public officer.
Conversely, if the accusation is that he sold national property to his friends for personal gain, those making the allegation should identify the particular assets, the buyers, the transaction prices, the applicable procedures and the evidence of personal enrichment or unlawful favouritism.
Political allegations must not be treated as judicial findings. Equally, the absence of a criminal conviction should not be used to declare every aspect of a public official’s record beyond scrutiny.
The fair position is simple: investigate the transactions, examine the evidence and establish individual responsibility rather than convicting a political candidate through slogans.
OTHER CRITICISMS OF ATIKU: QUESTIONS AND POSSIBLE RESPONSES
Several other arguments usually features in the debate over Atiku’s presidential ambition.
1. “Atiku has contested for the presidency too many times.”
The response is that repeated presidential bids are not, by themselves, evidence of incompetence or unfitness for office. The electorate should assess his experience, policies, record and proposed solutions to Nigeria’s problems. At the same time, experience should not automatically entitle him to the presidency; he must demonstrate why his leadership would produce better outcomes.
2. “Atiku is too old to lead Nigeria.”
Age deserves consideration in relation to a candidate’s health, stamina, judgement and ability to discharge the responsibilities of office. But age alone should not replace an objective assessment of capacity. Candidates should be judged by their demonstrated competence, transparency, policy understanding and ability to assemble a capable team.
3. “Atiku has faced corruption allegations and cannot be trusted.”
This criticism should not be dismissed with insults or partisan counterattacks. Atiku has faced controversies relating to public finance and transactions during his years in office, and these matters require serious scrutiny. He should address specific allegations with documentary evidence, explain any disputed transactions and demonstrate his commitment to transparency. Equally, voters should distinguish allegations, investigations, adverse findings and criminal convictions rather than treating them as interchangeable.
4. “Atiku will abandon the South-West after winning.”
The answer should be a demand for specific commitments rather than an appeal to personal relationships. Atiku should explain how his proposed administration would address infrastructure, electricity, agricultural development, education, industrial growth, employment and security in the South-West. Nigerians should insist on measurable commitments and judge him by his implementation of them.
5. “The South must complete its eight years before the North can return.”
Political rotation may be defended as a means of promoting inclusion, but it is not an express constitutional requirement that overrides the electorate’s choice. Nigeria’s Constitution does not prescribe an eight-year North-South rotation of the presidency. Parties may adopt zoning arrangements, and political fairness deserves consideration, but neither region owns the presidency.
Furthermore, the South-West is not politically uniform. Its citizens have different priorities, convictions and expectations. It is unreasonable to assume that every Yoruba person must support the same candidate simply because of regional identity.
6. “Atiku’s economic policies will not work.”
This is a legitimate issue for debate. Supporters should not merely insist that Atiku is the better candidate; they should explain how his proposals would address inflation, unemployment, exchange-rate instability, energy costs, public debt and poverty. His proposed policies should be tested for feasibility, funding, implementation risks and measurable benefits. Nigerians deserve an economic programme, not just a campaign slogan.
CONCLUSION: NIGERIA FIRST, ETHNICITY SECOND
The 2027 election must be about the future of Nigeria, not a competition over which ethnic group or region should occupy the presidency.
The South-West has every right to demand good governance, fairness, security and economic development. But those interests are not protected by automatically supporting a candidate from the region, just as they are not threatened automatically by supporting a candidate from another region.
Atiku Abubakar should be scrutinised. His policies should be questioned, his record examined and his promises tested. No candidate should be above criticism. But the same standard must apply to every contender, including the incumbent President.
As members and supporters of the African Democratic Congress, our responsibility is to present a credible alternative, defend our candidate with facts and offer Nigerians a practical programme for national renewal.
Let the South-West ask what Nigeria needs, what its people deserve and which candidate offers the most credible path towards achieving those objectives.
Must we endure poverty, hunger, insecurity and suffering merely to complete an eight-year political arrangement? Must ethnic loyalty become more important than the welfare of our children and grandchildren?
My appeal to our Yoruba brothers and sisters is this: let us rise above ethnic bigotry, reject political manipulation and evaluate every candidate on merit, integrity, competence, security and the capacity to improve the lives of Nigerians.
Nigeria belongs to all of us. The presidency should serve all of us. And the future of our country must be determined by the best interests of the Nigerian people, not by the accident of a candidate’s birthplace or ancestry.
Chief Ola Amure, Esq.
Ondo State Legal Adviser, African Democratic Congress (ADC)
