Those who have followed my writings over the years will know that what I am about to say is consistent with the position I have maintained since 2024. It also reflects my long-held belief that merit and political inclusion are not mutually exclusive; Nigeria can pursue both without sacrificing either.
In summary, my preference is for the 2027 presidential election to be principally contested between the incumbent President, Bola Ahmed Tinubu (APC), and His Excellency Peter Obi (NDC).
However, if Alhaji Atiku Abubakar insists on contesting and emerges as a formidable challenger, I believe President Tinubu should seriously consider stepping aside and supporting Peter Obi for the presidency.
Before reacting, I ask that you read the full argument.
Contrary to what many opposition figures would have the public believe, I do not think President Tinubu has performed poorly, considering the economic and institutional challenges he inherited. In my view, he has demonstrated courage by pursuing reforms aimed at repositioning Nigeria’s economy for long-term growth. History often shows that reform-minded leaders receive little applause while in office because the immediate costs of reform are felt before the long-term benefits emerge.
Whether one agrees with him or not, President Tinubu has overseen significant policy changes. His administration has introduced major tax reforms, advanced local government autonomy, removed fuel subsidies, floated the naira, and pursued constitutional reforms that could strengthen the role of states in security management. His administration has also supported reforms that provide states with greater opportunities to participate in electricity generation and distribution.
President Tinubu has shown exceptional courage in making difficult decisions since assuming office.
To me, however, the greatest weakness of the Tinubu administration is the perception of nepotism, particularly the belief that appointments have disproportionately favoured the South-West. As someone who believes that inclusion is essential for nation-building, I regard this as a significant drawback. Another concern is corruption. While the administration appears more focused on recovering public funds than prosecuting offenders, critics argue that greater attention should also be paid to preventing and addressing contemporary corruption.
Nigeria’s political evolution has historically revolved around its three largest ethnic blocs: the Igbo, Hausa-Fulani and Yoruba. Over the decades, successive political developments have altered that balance in different ways. In my opinion, many Igbos now feel politically marginalised, and I believe that addressing this perception of exclusion is important for strengthening national cohesion. Whether one agrees or disagrees with that assessment, it deserves thoughtful national conversation.
This is where I see the principal distinction between Tinubu and Obi.
In my view, President Tinubu is the leading reform candidate for 2027, while Peter Obi represents the strongest symbol of inclusion and national integration. Although they may differ in style and emphasis, both appear to share similar broad economic objectives, including market-oriented reforms, subsidy removal, exchange-rate liberalisation, and greater private-sector participation in the economy. Their approaches may differ, but many of their long-term goals overlap.
President Tinubu’s decision to wait until the presidency rotated back to the South before contesting reflected, in my opinion, an acknowledgement of Nigeria’s informal power-sharing tradition. Peter Obi, on the other hand, carries the aspirations of many Nigerians—particularly many in the South-East—who believe it is their turn to occupy the presidency.
Ordinarily, I do not believe Alhaji Atiku Abubakar has a compelling reason to seek the presidency again in 2027. Having previously benefited from Nigeria’s zoning and power-rotation arrangements, he could strengthen those conventions by supporting one of the major southern candidates, particularly Tinubu or Obi, both of whom have previously worked with him politically.
That said, underestimating Atiku would be a mistake. He remains one of Nigeria’s most experienced politicians with an extensive national political network. If he succeeds in consolidating significant support in the North while Tinubu and Obi divide much of the southern vote, he could emerge as a very formidable contender. Whether that would ultimately translate into victory would depend on both the popular vote and the constitutional spread required to win the presidency.
Looking at Nigeria’s democratic history since 1999, the South-West would have occupied the presidency for twelve years by 2027 if President Tinubu completes a single term. The South-South has held the office for about five years, while the North has occupied it for ten years. Against that background, I believe there is a reasonable case for the South-East to complete the South’s remaining turn before power returns to the North in 2031.
If President Tinubu were to make such a decision voluntarily, history could remember him not only as a reformer but also as a statesman who strengthened national inclusion and equity. Given his age and the scale of the reforms already initiated, one could also argue that Peter Obi would be well positioned to continue aspects of those reforms while broadening the sense of national ownership among communities that currently feel excluded.
In conclusion, my preferred outcome is either a direct Tinubu-versus-Obi contest that allows Nigerians to choose between two southern reform-minded candidates, or a broader political understanding in which both leaders work to prevent a highly fragmented southern vote in the event of a strong challenge from Atiku Abubakar.
That is my personal assessment of what I believe would best serve Nigeria’s long-term stability, reform agenda, and national cohesion.
-Chief John Okiyi Kalu
Public Affairs Analyst
23/07/2026
