By Femi Adefemiwa
As Nigeria marks another anniversary of our independence, it is an appropriate moment to reflect not only on how far we have travelled, but also on the kind of federation we are building. Independence gave us a country; fairness, justice and mutual accommodation must help us build a nation.
Nigeria is a federation.
That simple fact must never be forgotten in the struggle for political power.
We are a country of different peoples, cultures, religions, regions and historical experiences brought together under one sovereign authority. In such a federation, unity cannot be sustained by law alone. It must also be sustained by trust, accommodation, fairness and a deliberate sense of belonging.
That is why I believe the emerging debate over the presidency must be approached with considerable caution.
This is not about the ambition of one man. It should not be reduced to Tinubu, Atiku, Obi or anybody else. Individuals will come and go. Nigeria will remain.
The real question is whether the political understandings that have helped to maintain some balance within our federation should simply be discarded whenever they become inconvenient to particular ambitions.
I say no.
NIGERIA’S HISTORY DID NOT BEGIN IN 1999
There is sometimes a tendency to discuss North-South political balance as though Nigeria suddenly came into existence with the Fourth Republic.
It did not.
If history is to be invoked in discussing political balance, then we must have the courage to look at the whole history.
Nigeria’s record of national leadership since independence speaks for itself. After the First Republic came Aguiyi-Ironsi, Yakubu Gowon, Murtala Mohammed, Olusegun Obasanjo, Shehu Shagari, Muhammadu Buhari, Ibrahim Babangida, Ernest Shonekan, Sani Abacha and Abdulsalami Abubakar before democratic government returned in 1999.
Look carefully at that history.
Gowon governed for almost nine years. Murtala Mohammed followed. Shagari governed for more than four years. Buhari ruled as military Head of State. Babangida remained in power for almost eight years. Abacha followed, and Abdulsalami Abubakar eventually handed power to an elected government in 1999.
The South also produced Aguiyi-Ironsi, Obasanjo and the short-lived Interim National Government headed by Ernest Shonekan during that pre-1999 period.
I am not recounting this history to keep an ethnic scorecard. That would defeat the very argument I am making.
My point is much simpler:
Nobody should choose an arbitrary date from which fairness suddenly begins to count.
If we are going to invoke history, let us invoke the whole history.
If we are going to invoke fairness, let fairness be fair.
1999 WAS A NEW BEGINNING, NOT THE BEGINNING OF OUR MEMORY
The return to democracy in 1999 was undoubtedly a watershed.
After decades of coups, military governments, aborted transitions and political crises, Nigeria entered a new democratic era. Abdulsalami Abubakar handed power to Olusegun Obasanjo on May 29, 1999, beginning what has become Nigeria’s longest period of uninterrupted democratic government.
But 1999 did not wipe our national memory clean.
It did not erase everything that happened before it.
Indeed, the political accommodations that emerged in the Fourth Republic must be understood against the background of the tensions, suspicions and imbalances that preceded it.
Rotation was never merely about mathematics.
It was about reassurance.
It was about telling every major part of Nigeria: you belong here too.
That principle matters.
FEDERALISM REQUIRES MORE THAN WINNING ELECTIONS
There is a difference between what is constitutionally permissible and what is politically wise.
The Constitution does not presently prescribe a North-South rotation of the presidency. A Nigerian who satisfies the constitutional requirements is therefore not constitutionally barred from seeking the presidency merely because of his geographical origin.
That is the law.
But the Constitution itself recognises something deeper in its federal-character provisions: the need to promote national unity and ensure that there is no predominance of persons from a few states or sectional groups in government or its agencies.
That principle should mean something beyond appointments into ministries and government agencies.
It expresses an important truth about Nigeria:
No part of this federation should feel that Nigeria belongs more to somebody else than it belongs to them.
That is the spirit in which the question of presidential rotation should be approached.
A federation as complex as Nigeria cannot survive indefinitely on the philosophy that whatever is legally possible must necessarily be politically pursued.
Sometimes statesmanship requires restraint.
Sometimes leadership requires sacrifice.
Sometimes the preservation of the whole must take precedence over the ambition of the individual.
POLITICAL UNDERSTANDINGS MUST MEAN SOMETHING
One of our greatest political problems is that agreements appear sacred only for as long as they serve our immediate interests.
When an understanding favours us, we defend it as a matter of principle.
When the same understanding stands in the way of our ambition, we suddenly discover arguments for abandoning it.
A nation cannot build trust that way.
You cannot continually move the goalpost and expect those on the other side to continue believing in the game.
If there is an understanding that the presidency should rotate between North and South, then that understanding should be respected consistently.
It cannot be binding when convenient and disposable when inconvenient.
Otherwise, let us be courageous enough to admit that there is no understanding at all.
THIS IS BIGGER THAN 2027
My concern goes far beyond the next election.
The greater danger is the gradual erosion of trust among the constituent parts of Nigeria.
Once people begin to believe that political agreements mean nothing, every election becomes an existential struggle.
Every census becomes suspicious.
Every appointment becomes ethnic arithmetic.
Every presidential contest becomes a regional confrontation.
That is not the road to nationhood.
Nigeria already has enough fault lines. Responsible political leadership should be closing them, not widening them.
This is why the presidency must never become an instrument through which one part of the country feels triumphant while another feels vanquished.
We have travelled that road before.
We should know better.
PERHAPS IT IS TIME TO SETTLE THIS MATTER
There is, however, an uncomfortable truth we must confront.
As long as presidential rotation remains merely a political understanding, politicians will continue to interpret it according to their interests.
That is human nature.
Perhaps, therefore, the time has come for Nigeria to have a serious national conversation about whether rotation should be given constitutional backing.
Not because geography should replace competence.
Not because Nigerians should be prevented from choosing their leaders.
But because a constitutional arrangement would remove the endless argument over whether rotation exists, when it begins, whose turn it is and whether anybody is morally obliged to respect it.
Let the rules be clear.
If Nigerians decide that rotation is unnecessary, let us say so clearly and live with the consequences.
If Nigerians decide that rotation remains necessary for cohesion and political stability, then let us stop treating it as an informal arrangement that can be discarded at will.
Put it beyond manipulation.
Put it beyond individual ambition.
Put it beyond the convenience of political parties.
NIGERIA MUST COME FIRST
I have always believed strongly in one Nigeria.
But unity cannot simply be demanded. It must be nurtured.
People must have a reason to believe in the federation.
The North must feel secure in Nigeria.
The South must feel secure in Nigeria.
Every ethnic nationality, including those that may never possess the political weight to dominate a national contest, must nevertheless feel that this country is theirs.
That is what federalism should accomplish.
And that is why this conversation should not degenerate into insults, threats, ethnic triumphalism or the ambitions of particular politicians.
The presidency is temporary.
Nigeria is permanent.
Power will change hands.
Today’s political giants will eventually become names in history, just as those before them have become.
But the consequences of destroying trust among Nigerians may remain long after the politicians responsible have left the stage.
Let ambition have its place.
Let the Constitution have its place.
But let fairness, honour and the unity of Nigeria have the highest place.
Because ultimately, no political victory is worth weakening the federation itself.
Nigeria must remain bigger than the ambition of any Nigerian.
Femi Adefemiwa is a global Nigerian, public communicator, and advocate for good governance. He is the author of “Remote Working From Africa: A Practical Guide” and writes from the United States of America. He can be reached at jerome.adefemiwa@gmail.com.
The views, thoughts and opinions expressed in this article are solely belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy, views, opinions, or position of News Wings NG, its management, editorial team, or staff.
