By Ike Abonyi
“-When a President is incapacitated, and it is concealed, governance is no longer conducted by the person Nigerians voted for, but by an un-elected proxy collective.”
— Professor Wole Soyinka
In 2010, Nigeria’s only Nobel laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka, reflecting on executive health crises in Nigeria, made the opening remarks above during the controversy surrounding President Umaru Yar’Adua’s health, when the president’s associates were engaged in the same concealment that President Bola Tinubu’s unelected power brokers appear to be practising today.
The Prof also said at the time, “I find myself revolted, disgusted, and revolted by the use to which President Yar’Adua is being put by a group that is known, I believe, generally as the cabal.”
That is how the word cabal entered Nigeria’s political vocabulary. Do not ask me where Prof. Soyinka stands today. The Tinubu regime has revealed the hypocrisy of many, but at 92, should he not be forgiven? Where are the other Nigerians?
In 2023, questions about eligibility dominated discussions during the campaign for President Tinubu, yet he managed to overcome them and entered Aso Rock, fairly or otherwise. As the January 16, 2027, presidential election approaches, the eligibility question remains unresolved despite his completion of a first term. More importantly, the issue has now been joined by capacity.
The law may shield someone from eligibility challenges, as it did for Tinubu in 2023, but it cannot address incapacity. Eligibility may be resolved, but capacity cannot, particularly in the case of someone who has held power for four years and has had ample time to demonstrate his abilities.
The question many people are asking is this: if Nigeria were a business owned by members of the All Progressives Congress (APC), how many of them would choose someone like Tinubu to serve as their Chief Executive Officer (CEO)?
If the honest answer is none, why then are they insisting that he remain in office instead of having the board of directors ask him to resign, given that his continued tenure as CEO could sink the company?
The reality is that the board of directors (APC) has shown little concern for the feelings or interests of the company’s shareholders, who are Nigerians.
Now, with the Annual General Meeting approaching on January 16, 2027, the shareholders have an opportunity to assess the CEO’s capacity based on his four-year tenure and his record of strengthening the company and improving the shareholders’ benefits.
Instead, the board of directors and the company’s other contractors are taking money from the CEO and distributing it among the shareholders, who are being misled, even though they risk losing their entire investment in the company if the incapacitated CEO remains in office.
The shareholders have options; they can choose from qualified candidates on the shortlist, including Peter Obi, but the decision ultimately rests with them. President Tinubu’s prospects for a second term should be assessed from two angles: constitutional eligibility and presidential capacity. Is Tinubu legally entitled to pursue another term? Yes.
Eligibility is primarily a constitutional and legal matter. It concerns whether President Tinubu meets the requirements for seeking the presidency under the 1999 Constitution, as amended. Since Tinubu was elected president in 2023, he has not used up the two terms allowed by the Constitution.
Accordingly, seeking reelection in 2027 would not, by itself, breach the two-term limit. The central democratic principle is that eligibility should be established through law, evidence, and due process rather than political sentiment. But the other unresolved question is whether Tinubu has shown that he deserves another four years in office.
This is arguably the more significant issue for Nigerian voters. Although a person may be constitutionally eligible to seek re-election, that does not necessarily mean the person has demonstrated the competence, leadership, judgment, and governing capacity needed to remain in office.
Capacity should be evaluated in several areas, particularly health. Given what has been observed, how fit is the president to continue serving? His repeated medical trips abroad have kept him away from office on multiple occasions, while his public appearances showing him seemingly drugged and his shaky hands are among the other worries.
The concern is heightened by Nigeria’s history of incapacitated presidents being retained in office by cabals of political power mongers.
Public scrutiny of a sitting president’s physical fitness has deep historical roots in Nigeria. President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua (2007–2010): Extended medical absences in Saudi Arabia triggered a serious governance crisis, ultimately leading the National Assembly to invoke the “Doctrine of Necessity” and swear in Goodluck Jonathan as Acting President.
President Muhammadu Buhari (2015–2023): His repeated, prolonged medical absences in London generated widespread public concern and heightened political tensions over executive decision-making. And now President Bola Tinubu, whose physical cues, public appearances, and international travel have frequently drawn criticism and prompted questions about his fitness for office.
The administration consistently rejects these allegations as politically motivated distractions, maintaining that the president remains fully in control of the state’s executive functions away from what the public sees. Opposition figures, including Peter Obi, the leading contender to the throne, regularly identify capacity, competence, and commitment as fundamental requirements for effective governance.
Obi specifically questioned Tinubu’s energy to address the country’s numerous challenges, like insecurity, corruption, and economic mismanagement leading to poverty, most of which, he argues, were created by Tinubu and his APC. A case for a second term must therefore establish not only the government’s security strategy but also tangible gains in public safety.
The same applies to poverty and social welfare, where subsidy removal and other economic reforms have created substantial adjustment burdens. The central issue is whether the administration has shown enough capacity to safeguard vulnerable households, generate employment, and expand access to essential services.
Arguments portraying Tinubu as an experienced and strategic political leader overlook the larger issue, since presidential capacity extends beyond personal intelligence or political sagacity. It must be reflected in multiple aspects of governance, including the quality of appointments, the cabinet’s performance, policy coherence and execution, respect for democratic institutions, and accountability and transparency.
The president’s capacity to forge national consensus is equally important because no president can govern a diverse country effectively through political calculations alone. Accordingly, the distinction that should shape the 2027 debate over eligibility and capability is this: Is the president constitutionally eligible? Has he shown effective leadership? Has he produced significant results?
In light of the apparent health challenges, is he qualified to seek another term? Does he merit another mandate? Should his ambition for a second term be decided by legal provisions or by his record and the voters?
Beyond the legal and political issues, the debate should also address questions of governance. This distinction matters because resolving the eligibility issue does not automatically resolve the question of capacity. Even if all the allegations against Tinubu in the eligibility case are dismissed, Nigerians will still have to determine whether his performance warrants another four years.
‘The 2027 presidential election should not be reduced to a referendum solely on Tinubu’s eligibility to run. It should also assess whether he has the capacity to govern effectively enough to merit another opportunity. Allowing the legal dispute over eligibility to eclipse the more important questions of national development and governing ability would be dangerous.
Nigeria needs more than a president who is legally permitted to occupy Aso Rock; it needs one who can effectively fulfil the responsibilities of the office. Eligibility confers the right, but capacity justifies the mandate. Has Tinubu demonstrated the necessary capacity to date? The answer is no.
Therefore, in considering his second term, Nigeria must distinguish between the right to contest and the ability to govern. Eligibility may grant access to the ballot, but only performance, competence, accountability, and public trust should justify another presidential mandate.
One troubling dimension of the capacity question, as demonstrated under Tinubu and seen with Yar’Adua and Buhari, is the influence of the UPP, the unelected power persons. This group takes advantage of the situation to hijack power for their interests, prompting questions about who truly exercises authority.
Going forward, these dynamics require robust institutional safeguards, transparent disclosure of executive health, and fiscally accountable policies.
God help us.’
- Ike Abonyi, Editor At Large, writes from Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT)
