Buhari Yusuf Calls Zoning “Undemocratic” Ahead of 2027 Presidential Race
LAGOS, May 11 — Legal practitioner and public‑affairs analyst Buhari Yusuf argued on Monday that the practice of zoning the Nigerian presidency is fundamentally at odds with democratic principles. Appearing as a guest on Trust TV’s interview programme, Yusuf said the concept has been repeatedly rejected by Nigeria’s constitutions and warned that it could undermine the credibility of the forthcoming 2027 general elections.
Speaking to the presenter, Yusuf traced the origin of the zoning debate to the post‑independence era, noting that the 1979 Constitution – widely regarded as the most influential constitutional document in Nigeria’s history – made no provision for rotating the highest office among the country’s geopolitical zones. “All subsequent constitutional developments have continued to reject zoning,” he asserted, adding that the notion has never been enshrined in any legal framework.
According to Yusuf, zoning acts as a “ceasefire in democracy,” a temporary suspension of genuine competition that re‑emerges whenever elections loom. “It does not solve the problem; rather, it increases the tempo,” he said, suggesting that forced geographic rotation creates rather than resolves political tension.
The analyst explained that democracy presupposes voters’ freedom to choose from a range of candidates, not to have those choices pre‑sorted by region. “When you compartmentalise options along geographical lines, you strip citizens of the right to select among multiple offers,” Yusuf argued. He warned that such a system “obviates” the fundamental democratic right of choice, rendering the process a façade rather than a true expression of the popular will.
Yusuf’s comments come amid renewed calls from various political factions to adopt a zoning arrangement for the 2027 election, a practice that has been informally observed in past electoral cycles. Proponents argue that rotating the presidency among the North, South‑west, South‑east and South‑south can promote national unity and prevent perceived marginalisation. Critics, however, contend that zoning contravenes constitutional provisions and erodes merit‑based competition.
While Yusuf’s remarks reflect a legal perspective, they also echo a broader civil‑society debate about how best to balance inclusivity with constitutional fidelity. The analyst did not dismiss the desire for equitable representation but insisted that any such goal must be achieved within the bounds of the law. “The concept has been rejected since the creation of Nigeria,” he reiterated, urging political actors to seek reforms that respect both democratic choice and national cohesion.
His statements have sparked discussion across social media platforms, with commentators noting the tension between traditional power‑sharing arrangements and the legal imperatives of a modern democracy. Some users welcomed Yusuf’s call for a constitutionally anchored electoral process, while others cautioned that ignoring regional sensitivities could exacerbate ethnic and regional rivalries.
As Nigeria approaches a critical electoral juncture, Yusuf’s critique adds a legal dimension to the ongoing conversation about zoning. Whether lawmakers will reconsider the practice in light of such arguments remains to be seen, but the debate underscores the delicate task of reconciling Nigeria’s diverse federal structure with the universal standards of democratic governance.
