By Amb. Anderson Osiebe.

Nigeria’s political landscape has once again been stirred by controversy following the criticism trailing the recent defection of Enyinnaya Abaribe to another political party outside the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).

The backlash has raised fundamental questions about political tolerance, democratic fairness, and the apparent double standards in the reactions of the ruling party when lawmakers switch political allegiances.

For years, Nigeria’s political arena has witnessed a steady flow of opposition lawmakers defecting to the APC. In many cases, these defections were celebrated by the ruling party, welcomed with fanfare, and presented as proof of the APC’s growing political dominance.

Governors, senators, members of the House of Representatives, and even entire political structures have crossed over to the ruling party with little resistance.
However, the reaction to Senator Abaribe’s defection appears to tell a different story.

Senator Abaribe, a prominent figure known for his outspoken positions in the National Assembly, recently chose to align himself with another political platform (ADC) outside the APC. Rather than being treated as a routine democratic choice, his move has reportedly attracted criticism and discomfort from some voices within the ruling party.

Observers say this reaction highlights a troubling inconsistency in Nigeria’s political culture.

In a democratic system, freedom of association remains a core constitutional right. Political actors are expected to freely join or leave parties based on ideological alignment, political strategy, or the interests of their constituents.

Yet, critics argue that in Nigeria, defections are often celebrated only when they strengthen the ruling party but condemned when they weaken it.

Analysts note that the APC has historically benefited from high-profile defections since coming to power in 2015. Lawmakers from opposition parties have frequently moved to the ruling party without facing serious institutional or moral backlash from APC leaders.
These movements were often framed as evidence that the ruling party offered a better platform for governance and national development.

However, the criticism and attacks directed at Abaribe’s departure raises concerns about whether political actors are genuinely committed to democratic principles or merely supportive of defections when they serve their political advantage.

Political commentators say democracy must be consistent. If defections are considered legitimate when opposition lawmakers join the ruling party, the same principle should apply when a lawmaker decides to move in the opposite direction.

Nigeria’s constitution recognizes the right of politicians to associate freely with political parties. While provisions exist concerning defection, particularly in relation to legislative seats, these clauses are often interpreted differently depending on the political interests involved.

Many Nigerians therefore view the controversy around Abaribe’s move as more political than constitutional.

Supporters of the senator argue that his decision reflects the independence that elected representatives should exercise in a democratic system. They insist that lawmakers should not be intimidated or pressured into remaining in political parties that no longer align with their convictions or the interests of their constituents.

Beyond the individual case of Senator Abaribe, the issue highlights a deeper challenge within Nigeria’s political system: the culture of opportunistic politics.
Frequent defections, often without clear ideological differences between parties, have weakened the credibility of Nigeria’s multiparty democracy. Critics say political parties must move beyond mere platforms for electoral convenience and develop clear policy identities that guide political affiliation.

For many Nigerians, the controversy surrounding Abaribe’s defection ultimately exposes the hypocrisy that sometimes defines political reactions in the country.

As Nigeria approaches the next electoral cycle, the handling of political defections may serve as a test of the country’s democratic maturity. True democratic culture requires tolerance, consistency, and respect for political freedoms, regardless of who benefits from them.

If defections are welcomed when they strengthen the ruling party but condemned when they empower alternative platforms, observers warn that such inconsistency could undermine public trust in the political system.

For now, Senator Abaribe’s political move has once again placed the spotlight on the delicate balance between political strategy and democratic principle in Nigeria’s evolving democracy.

Amb. Anderson Osiebe, Executive Director, HallowMace Foundation, Public Policy Expert and an Administrator writes from Abuja – Nigeria.

By: Amb. Anderson Osiebe

As Nigeria gradually approaches the 2027 general elections, conversations around power rotation have resurfaced with renewed intensity.

At the heart of this debate lies a fundamental question: Should the presidency remain in the South in 2027, before returning to the North, in the spirit of unity, equity, justice and national stability?

Nigeria is a delicate federation, diverse in ethnicity, religion and political history. Since the return to democracy in 1999, an informal but politically sensitive understanding has guided the distribution of presidential power between the North and the South.

This unwritten rotational principle has helped calm tensions, reduce suspicion, and foster a sense of belonging among Nigeria’s federating units.

From 1999 to 2007, the presidency was held by Olusegun Obasanjo (South-West). It shifted to the North with Umaru Musa Yar’Adua in 2007, before returning to the South under Goodluck Jonathan.

Power moved back to the North in 2015 with Muhammadu Buhari, who completed eight years in office. In 2023, the pendulum swung again to the South with the emergence of Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

So, if this has been the arrangement, why North in 2027?

Against this backdrop, proponents of equity like me, argue that 2027 should consolidate the South’s turn in the interest of fairness. If the North completed eight uninterrupted years from 2015 to 2023, justice demands that the South be allowed the same political stability and opportunity.

Beyond arithmetic fairness, the argument is also about national cohesion. Nigeria has endured deep political mistrust, sectional agitation and identity-driven tensions.

Abruptly truncating the Southern tenure in 2027 could reignite feelings of marginalisation and undermine the fragile trust the rotation principle seeks to protect.

Supporters also maintain that political stability strengthens economic confidence.
Investors and development partners prefer predictability too.

Sustaining zoning arrangements reduces electoral volatility and signals continuity.
However, the broader message is not about permanent entitlement, it is about balance.

After a completed Southern tenure, power can then justifiably rotate back to the North, reinforcing the spirit of give-and-take that sustains multi-ethnic democracies.

Ultimately, Nigeria’s democracy must rise above winner-takes-all politics. The survival of the republic depends not only on ballots cast, but on perceived fairness in the sharing of power.

In 2027, the test will not just be about who wins, but whether Nigeria chooses unity over division, equity over expediency, and peace over provocation.

This is where I stand.

Amb. Anderson Osiebe, Executive Director, HallowMace Foundation Africa, Public Policy Expert and an Administrator writes from Abuja – Nigeria.

By George Mgbeleke

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has criticised President Bola Ahmed Tinubu over his recent remark about the state of democracy in Nigeria. While speaking at an Iftar (break of fast) with the Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC), the President dismissed opposition criticism of his handling of the Electoral Act 2026 amendment, concluding that the “game is sweet if you are winning.”

But the opposition party has described the President’s reaction as cynical, saying it makes a mockery of democratic participation and reduces the serious business of government to a mere “game.”

In a statement signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, the party said the comment raises serious questions about the President’s democratic credentials and his understanding of the grave responsibilities of leadership at a time when millions of Nigerians are struggling with rising violence, unemployment, and widespread poverty across the country.

The full statement read:

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) strongly rejects President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s recent remarks, which cynically dismiss opposition objections to the Electoral Act 2026, while reducing the serious business of governance to a mere “game.”

Speaking at an Iftar with the Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC), the President, while attempting to explain his hasty assent to the much maligned Act, told the opposition to stop complaining and meet him at the polls. “The game is sweet only when you’re winning,” he concluded, triumphantly.

For a sitting President presiding over a country facing deep economic hardship and widespread insecurity, this remark is not only cynical, it is profoundly troubling. Perhaps more importantly, this remark also raises serious questions about the President’s democratic credentials and his understanding of the responsibilities that come with leadership in a constitutional democracy. Democracy is not a contest to be enjoyed by those in power; it is a system of governance built on accountability, respect for institutions, and responsibility to the people.

The President claims to be a democrat. But in reality, he has demonstrated more totalitarian tendencies than most dictators. The Electoral Act, which is, to all intents and purposes, designed to further emasculate the opposition, lower the nation’s ethical standard, and give President Tinubu a free pass to victory is something no true democrat would do. Yet, the President sees this as a game.

The President may go ahead and award himself victory over the political game, but there is no doubt that he is failing woefully in the game that matters most: providing leadership and improving the lives of citizens. Despite the APC’s near total control of the entire political structure in the country, the ruling party under President Tinubu has failed in its primary responsibility to everyday Nigerians whose lives and livelihoods they now consider a fair game.

It is important to therefore ask the President: Who exactly is winning in this so-called game? Are Nigerians winning when communities are attacked and citizens are killed? Are Nigerians winning when graduates cannot find jobs? Are Nigerians winning when families cannot afford food and basic necessities? Are Nigerians winning when the brightest young people see their future only outside their own country?

If politics is a game to the President, the Nigerian people are the ones paying the price. Nigeria does not need a gamer-in-chief. Nigeria needs a leader who understands the weight of the office he holds and the responsibility it carries. The presidency is not a prize to be enjoyed. It is a burden to be carried with competence and respect for the Nigerian people and the laws of the Federal Republic.

At this critical moment in Nigeria’s history, governance must never be trivialised. Too many lives depend on it.