BY LAWAN MUSA DANLAMI
THE RECENT declaration by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, that he could be “the first politician” opposition forces would come after if President Bola Ahmed Tinubu loses the 2027 presidential election has opened an important window into the realities of Nigerian politics. Beyond the immediate controversy surrounding the statement, it raises deeper questions about political loyalty, accountability, institutional independence and the increasingly personalised nature of political competition in Nigeria.
Wike remains a member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the platform through which he rose to national prominence and served as governor of Rivers State. Yet he has openly aligned himself with President Tinubu and has declared his support for the President’s re-election in 2027. His decision has placed him in an unusual political position, supporting a president from another political party while remaining formally within the opposition. It has also exposed him to criticism from sections of the PDP and from political actors who regard his position as a betrayal of the party’s interests.
Political consequences are an unavoidable part of democratic life. Politicians make choices, form alliances, support candidates and campaign for political interests. Those choices can strengthen or weaken their political careers. A politician who supports an unpopular candidate may lose political influence, while one who makes a popular political choice may gain it. Such consequences are part of democratic competition.
Wike, however, appears determined to remain on the political path he has chosen. His recent remarks suggest that he is fully conscious of the risks associated with his political alignment and understands that a change in government could potentially alter the political circumstances surrounding him and other members of the present political establishment.
ALSO READ: The Feasibility Of A Viable Opposition Coalition; By Jibrin Ibrahim
Speaking during a media interaction, Wike reportedly said: “I will be the first politician that I think they will come after. I will be the first politician. I know they will come for my head.” The statement was unusually direct and immediately attracted political attention. It was not simply an expression of concern about losing political influence; it appeared to reflect a deeper fear that a change of government could expose him to investigation, prosecution or other forms of political pressure.
His subsequent comments reinforced the extent of his commitment to President Tinubu’s re-election. “When I sleep, I am thinking about the president’s re-election. When I am eating, I think about the president’s re-election. Everything I am doing now is about the president’s re-election,” Wike said.
These remarks reveal how consequential the 2027 election has become for him. His political calculations are no longer limited to party affiliation or electoral strategy. They are connected to the wider question of what happens to political actors when the balance of power changes in Abuja.
Nigeria has a long history of political competition in which the struggle for public office is often treated as a struggle for influence, access and survival. The intensity of this competition is partly explained by the enormous power concentrated in the executive arm of government and by the weakness of some institutions that should ordinarily provide safeguards against arbitrary political action.
ALSO READ: The Price As Tinubu And APC Are Determined To Conquer Nigeria; By Iduh Onah
In a mature democracy, a change of government should principally mean a change in political leadership and policy direction. It should not automatically mean that political opponents become targets of state institutions. At the same time, leaving office should not provide former public officials with immunity from legitimate accountability. This distinction is critical.
Political consequences are an unavoidable part of democratic life. Politicians make choices, form alliances, support candidates and campaign for political interests. Those choices can strengthen or weaken their political careers. A politician who supports an unpopular candidate may lose political influence, while one who makes a popular political choice may gain it. Such consequences are part of democratic competition.
Legal accountability, however, operates according to a different standard. No public official should be above the law. Governors, ministers, legislators, presidents and other public officers exercise authority on behalf of the people and should be prepared to account for the decisions taken while in office. Where credible evidence of corruption, abuse of office or other criminal conduct exists, the appropriate institutions should investigate the matter and, where the evidence warrants it, prosecute according to established legal procedures.
But accountability must never become a convenient language for political revenge. There is a profound difference between investigating an individual because credible evidence suggests that a crime may have been committed and targeting that individual because of political disagreement. The first strengthens democracy; the second undermines it. The first is governed by evidence and due process; the second is driven by political resentment and the desire to punish opponents. Nigeria’s democratic development depends heavily on maintaining this distinction.
A healthy democracy should allow politicians to compete intensely for office without creating a situation in which victory is associated with immunity and defeat with persecution. Public officials should know that they will be held accountable where there is evidence of wrongdoing, but they should also know that political disagreement alone cannot lawfully become the basis for prosecution. This balance is essential.
For many years, political opponents in Nigeria have accused successive administrations of using state institutions to settle political scores. Such accusations have contributed to public scepticism about the independence of security agencies, anti-corruption bodies and other institutions of government. Even legitimate investigations can become politically controversial when citizens believe that similar allegations are ignored when they involve politically connected individuals.
ALSO READ: Atiku’s Inconsistent Consistency; By Zainab Suleiman Okino
The solution is not to weaken anti-corruption institutions or prevent investigations. Rather, Nigeria must strengthen those institutions so that their decisions are determined by evidence and law rather than political considerations.
This is where the scholarship of Francis Fukuyama becomes particularly relevant. His writings on political order and institutional development emphasise the importance of strong institutions and the rule of law in preventing arbitrary exercises of political power. A stable political system requires institutions capable of constraining individuals, including those who control the government.
Larry Diamond’s scholarship on democracy and democratic consolidation similarly highlights the importance of constitutionalism, accountability and institutional restraints. Elections are essential to democracy, but elections alone do not guarantee democratic consolidation. Democracy becomes sustainable when institutions are trusted, political competition is governed by rules and citizens believe that public authority is exercised within constitutional boundaries.
For Nigeria, the lesson is clear. Political institutions must become stronger than political personalities.
A democracy cannot function effectively if political actors believe that their safety depends on maintaining political influence. Neither can it function if politicians in government believe that electoral victory gives them unlimited authority to punish their opponents.
ALSO READ: Growth Without Relief: Nigerians Cannot Eat GDP Figures; By Ivo Takor
Wike’s fear therefore raises a broader concern about the psychology of political power in Nigeria. If politicians perceive losing an election as potentially exposing them to imprisonment, financial destruction or political persecution, they may become increasingly desperate to retain power. Such desperation can encourage the manipulation of institutions, excessive political spending, electoral misconduct and other practices that weaken democratic competition.
The result is a vicious cycle. Politicians fear losing power because they fear what may happen after they leave office. Because they fear losing power, they become determined to retain it. Their opponents then become equally determined to defeat them, sometimes at almost any cost. Political competition becomes a battle for survival rather than a contest over competing ideas and programmes. The Nigerian people ultimately bear the cost of this political culture.
When elections become battles for political survival, issues such as employment, education, healthcare, infrastructure, security and economic development can be pushed into the background. Political actors devote more attention to coalition-building, defections, patronage and the neutralisation of opponents than to the development of effective public policy. This is one reason the 2027 election should be viewed not merely as another presidential contest but as another test of Nigeria’s democratic maturity.
The conduct of both winners and losers will matter. Those who win must understand that electoral victory does not confer unlimited political authority, while those who lose must recognise that democratic defeat is not necessarily a personal catastrophe. Legitimate legal challenges remain available where there are genuine disputes, but once constitutional processes have been exhausted, political actors must accept the outcome and continue contributing to national development.
If President Tinubu wins another term, his administration will have an obligation to demonstrate that victory does not translate into political vengeance. If the opposition wins, it will face an equally important obligation to prove that a change of government is not an opportunity to settle old political scores. The same principle should apply to every political party and every political leader.
ALSO READ: Has The NBA Found Its Lost Glory In VDM? By Abadom Lawrence Amechi
If allegations are made against Wike or any other former public official, the issue should be handled according to the same legal standard that applies to every Nigerian. The relevant question should not be whether the individual supported Tinubu, Atiku Abubakar, Peter Obi or another candidate. Nor should party membership determine whether an investigation is initiated or abandoned. What should matter is whether credible evidence exists, whether the investigation is conducted impartially, whether the accused is afforded due process and whether the courts are allowed to make independent determinations. That is the essence of equality before the law.
A former governor of the PDP, APC, Labour Party or any other political organisation should have the same legal rights and responsibilities. A serving minister should neither be shielded from legitimate scrutiny because of political proximity to the government nor subjected to persecution because of political disagreements.
The Nigerian state must therefore move towards a system in which accountability is predictable and political retaliation is difficult.
Where credible evidence of wrongdoing exists, accountability must follow regardless of political affiliation. Where credible evidence does not exist, no citizen should be targeted simply because of political allegiance, electoral choice or association with a particular political camp.
The independence of institutions will be central to achieving this objective. The judiciary must remain capable of deciding cases without political interference. Anti-corruption agencies must be able to investigate allegations without being perceived as instruments of the ruling party. Security institutions must operate within the law, while electoral institutions must retain sufficient credibility to ensure that citizens trust the democratic process.
ALSO READ: The Bureaucratic Labyrinth: Can The New Helmsman Tame The Civil Service Machine? By Lanre Ogundipe
The media and civil society also have an important role to play. Their responsibility is not simply to support one political camp against another but to scrutinise the exercise of power regardless of who controls it. A democratic media culture must be willing to criticise both government and opposition, while civil society must demand transparency from all political actors.
Wike’s statement should therefore not be reduced to a personal political quarrel between him and his opponents. It provides an opportunity to consider why political actors continue to perceive the transfer of power as such a dangerous event.
A healthy democracy should allow politicians to compete intensely for office without creating a situation in which victory is associated with immunity and defeat with persecution. Public officials should know that they will be held accountable where there is evidence of wrongdoing, but they should also know that political disagreement alone cannot lawfully become the basis for prosecution. This balance is essential.
Political freedom does not mean freedom from accountability. Accountability does not mean freedom to persecute political opponents. The two principles must exist together if democratic governance is to function properly.
As Nigeria approaches 2027, political rhetoric will inevitably become more intense. Alliances will shift, new coalitions will emerge, old grievances will return to the political arena and politicians will attempt to redefine their relationships with voters and political parties. But beneath these political manoeuvres lies a more important national responsibility: ensuring that the institutions of the Nigerian state remain stronger than the individuals who temporarily control them.
ALSO READ: From Abuja To Hangzhou (2): Thrills, Frills And The Chinese ‘Smart Life’; By Max Amuchie
Nigeria must eventually move away from a political culture in which public office is regarded as a shield against accountability and losing office is regarded as a threat to personal survival. Political power is temporary. Political alliances are temporary. Governments come and go. Presidents leave office, ministers are replaced and political parties rise and fall. What should endure are the Constitution, the rule of law and the institutions established to protect the rights and interests of citizens.
The 2027 election will therefore test not only Nigeria’s political leadership but also the resilience of its democratic institutions. The real success of the election will not be measured solely by who occupies Aso Rock after the votes are counted. It will also be measured by whether the country can manage political transition without turning the state into an instrument of revenge.
Wike’s fear may ultimately prove justified or unfounded. Events will determine that. But his statement has nevertheless opened a necessary national conversation about the relationship between power, accountability and political survival.
The appropriate response should not be to guarantee political protection for Wike or any other politician. It should be to build institutions strong enough to protect every citizen from both impunity and persecution.
Where credible evidence of wrongdoing exists, accountability must follow regardless of political affiliation. Where credible evidence does not exist, no citizen should be targeted simply because of political allegiance, electoral choice or association with a particular political camp.
That is the standard Nigeria must defend as it approaches another critical electoral cycle.
The ultimate test of Nigerian democracy is not whether powerful politicians can protect themselves while they control political power. It is whether the same law remains fair when they lose it.
Nigeria deserves a democracy in which political opponents can compete without fearing one another, public officials can leave office without expecting revenge, and citizens can trust that justice is determined by evidence and law rather than by political loyalty.
