When the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) ruled Nigeria for sixteen years, from 1999 to 2015, many Nigerians—especially opposition members—criticised the party for its haughtiness, high‑handedness and obsession with victory. The PDP was accused of treating elections as a “do‑or‑die” affair. At that time, the President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retired), and the President‑elect, Senator Bola Tinubu, were both members of the opposition. Both Buhari and Tinubu regularly condemned the PDP for lacking democratic ethics and for flouting the rule of law, portraying themselves and their parties as the superior alternative in terms of vision and democratic ethos.
During Tinubu’s second term as governor (2003‑2007), he was the sole governor from the Alliance for Democracy—later the Action Congress and then the Action Congress of Nigeria—after five of his colleagues lost to the PDP in 2003. As a political “orphan,” he garnered sympathy from many Nigerians, even those outside Lagos. In 2003, Tinubu added 37 local council development areas to Lagos’s existing 20 LGAs. The Obasanjo administration responded by seizing the monthly allocations to Lagos’s LGAs. Tinubu sued, and the Supreme Court ordered the release of the funds, but President Olusegun Obasanjo ignored the ruling, earning widespread condemnation as a dictator in democratic clothing. Tinubu seized the opportunity to portray Obasanjo as a despot and to present himself and his party as true democrats who would provide exemplary leadership if given the chance. Tinubu’s political résumé also included membership in the National Democratic Coalition, formed to oppose the military after the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election. He was elected governor of Lagos State in 1999 and served two four‑year terms. Since 2007, he has acted as the “political father” of his party, which merged in 2013 with the Congress for Progressive Change and the All Nigeria Peoples Party to form the All Progressives Congress (APC), the ruling party from 2015 onward.
Buhari’s trajectory mirrored Tinubu’s. Although he ruled Nigeria as a military dictator from December 31, 1983 to August 27, 1985, he entered civilian politics and ran for president in 2003, repeatedly assuring the public that he was a reformed democrat. His support base lay mainly in the North, and after losing the 2003 election he alleged rigging; he made the same claim after his 2007 defeat. In 2011, running under his own Congress for Progressive Change, he lost again, and his supporters unleashed violence in several northern states, causing deaths and property destruction. In 2015, however, Buhari won the presidency under the APC, defeating incumbent PDP President Goodluck Jonathan. Jonathan’s conduct—refusing to use thugs, allowing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to operate freely, conceding defeat early, and handing power over peacefully—earned praise for Nigeria’s democratic maturation.
Despite their earlier democratic rhetoric, both Buhari as president and Tinubu as president‑elect have undermined the quality of Nigeria’s democracy, turning the country into a subject of ridicule. They have been brazen in preventing a clean electoral process, becoming worse than the PDP they once condemned. Under Buhari’s watch, violence persisted, Supreme Court judgments were ignored, and, unprecedentedly for a civilian president, a sitting Chief Justice of the Federation—the head of the judiciary—was removed, compromising the independence of one of the three arms of government. Moreover, INEC, once lauded in 2015 for its independence, has become an appendage of the government.
The 2023 elections highlighted this decline. In the February 25 presidential election, INEC was accused of violating its rule to transmit results electronically from all polling units, instead announcing results from clearly mutilated sheets despite opposition complaints, and hurriedly declaring the APC candidate the winner. The election was also marred by violence: thugs attacked voters, destroyed ballots and chased away electoral officials. The subsequent governorship elections were even more chaotic. An unprecedented ethnic campaign, especially in Lagos, preceded the vote. A Tinubu campaign spokesman threatened, “Let 2023 be the last time of Igbo interference in Lagos politics. Let there be no repeat in 2027,” referring to non‑indigenes who had not supported Tinubu in the presidential election—a first loss for his party in Lagos since 1999. On election day, guns, machetes, bottles and clubs were used against voters, with attackers identified as APC supporters who screened voters by ethnicity. Had APC leaders firmly condemned such violence, it might have been avoided. Yet there were no reports of Tinubu reprimanding, dismissing, or having the perpetrators arrested, emboldening further misconduct. Violence has become normalised by the APC, a stark reversal for those once victims of political high‑handedness.
Official endorsement of thuggery, ethnic baiting and suppression of the opposition threatens to plunge Nigeria into a dangerous phase. Nevertheless, there remains time to reverse this trajectory and restore democratic norms.
Twitter: @BrandAzuka
Comments are closed for this story.