Anthony Obi Ogbo
Guardian News Editorial Cartoon
“The Executive wields significant and often unchecked influence over the institutions critical to the democratic process” —Anthony Obi Ogbo
As Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections, all eyes are on incumbent President Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC), who is expected to seek a second term amid mounting national discontent. His administration, marred by persistent allegations of corruption, ethnic favoritism, and constitutional overreach, has faced sharp criticism from both civil society and opposition blocs. Questions surrounding fiscal opacity, particularly in budget allocations, alongside his controversial academic credentials and ineffective international engagements, have intensified public skepticism about his leadership and intentions.
In what may signal the onset of a fierce political confrontation ahead of this pivotal election, three heavyweight opposition figures—former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and former Governors Nasir El-Rufai and Rotimi Amaechi—have jointly set their sights on unseating President Tinubu and dismantling the grip of the APC. Describing the current administration as presiding over a regime marred by deepening poverty, rampant insecurity, economic stagnation, and institutional decay, the trio announced a political realignment to “rescue Nigeria from systemic collapse.”
The bold declaration has already intensified political tensions, drawing a sharp rebuttal from the APC. Through its National Publicity Secretary, Felix Morka, the ruling party dismissed the trio’s criticisms as “a calculated deflection,” arguing that the opposition figures themselves failed to deliver lasting reforms during their combined 24 years in high-level political office between 1999 and 2023.
This brewing political contest sets the stage for a historic election cycle, where questions of leadership credibility, national recovery, and democratic integrity will dominate the national discourse. While the opposition continues to build up, only a few are sufficiently engaged with the entrenched institutional challenges that threaten the very integrity of Nigeria’s democratic process —the most formidable being the implausibility of unseating a sitting President. This entrenched difficulty is not merely a function of political popularity or party dominance but rather a deeply imbalanced governance architecture that disproportionately empowers the executive arm of government.
The Nigerian executive wields significant and often unchecked influence over the institutions critical to the democratic process: security agencies, the judiciary, and the electoral commission. These are the very pillars responsible for safeguarding transparency, enforcing the rule of law, and ensuring the integrity of elections. However, in practice, they often operate under the shadow of executive pressure, patronage, or outright control.
This over-centralization of authority creates a political environment where incumbents are not only insulated from accountability but are also equipped with the institutional leverage to influence electoral outcomes in their favor. Consequently, genuine political competition becomes stifled, opposition parties systematically weakened, and democratic transitions of power rendered exceptional rather than routine.
The concentration of power within the executive—particularly its influence over security forces, the judiciary, and the electoral commission—creates a dangerous imbalance that favors incumbency at the expense of free competition. Without meaningful reform and the insulation of democratic institutions from political interference, the 2027 elections risk becoming another exercise in formality rather than a true expression of the people’s will. The stakes, as history has repeatedly shown, could not be higher.
In Nigeria’s deeply flawed political architecture, incumbency is not merely an advantage but a strategic stronghold. Successive presidents have leveraged the whole state machinery, including control over security, electoral institutions, and judicial levers, to secure re-election or ensure succession within their party ranks. The structural imbalance heavily tilts the political playing field in favor of those already in power.
Historically, no incumbent president has lost a re-election bid—except Goodluck Jonathan in 2015, whose defeat is widely attributed not to the strength of his opposition but to internal missteps. Isolated by layers of sycophantic advisers and disconnected from public sentiment, Jonathan placed trust in a political echo chamber that ultimately misled him. His loss marked a rare exception in Nigeria’s democratic experiment, underscoring how even incumbency can falter under the weight of complacency and strategic miscalculation.
Despite criticism over economic hardships and security challenges, the APC’s political machinery remains robust. The party has witnessed defections from opposition ranks, further strengthening its base. While the opposition is strategizing to mount a formidable challenge, the incumbent’s entrenched position, coupled with a fragmented opposition landscape, suggests that Tinubu’s prospects for re-election remain strong. The interplay of political strategy, institutional control, and recent policy initiatives positions the APC favorably as the nation heads toward the 2027 elections.
Until structural reforms ensure true independence and insulation of key democratic institutions from executive overreach, the notion of a free and fair political contest, especially against incumbents, will remain more theoretical than real.
♦Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D. is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
“For those who casually talk of war or fantasize about forcing the Igbo to flee again, it’s crucial to understand one thing: the dynamics of conflict have changed.” —Dr. Emeaba Emeaba
Naïveté is a condition of trusting too easily, of believing the world to be simple and fair, of taking things at face value. This was the state of the Igbo people in Nigeria before the tragedy of Biafra. The Igbo were industrious traders and sojourners who engaged with the world earnestly, often assuming others shared their sincerity. But their aggressive individualism and entrepreneurial spirit irritated many, planting seeds of resentment in a fragile national fabric.
The tipping point came with a failed coup in 1966. The coup’s leaders were largely of Igbo extraction, and some prominent Hausa-Fulani politicians were killed. When the coup was suppressed by the then-Igbo army commander, Major General Aguiyi Ironsi, who assumed national leadership, suspicion turned to hostility. It didn’t matter that the Igbo were not collectively complicit; perceptions of ethnic dominance fueled violent reprisals. Across Nigeria, Igbo civilians—men, women, and children—were slaughtered, maimed, and driven from their homes. Their crime? Sharing the same ethnicity as some of the coup plotters.
Faced with relentless persecution, the Igbo fled to Eastern Nigeria, seeking refuge under the protection of their military governor, Lt. Col. Odumegwu Ojukwu. The clamor for safety and dignity led to a call for secession, birthing the short-lived Republic of Biafra. However, the Nigerian government responded with war, branding the secession as rebellion. What followed was a campaign of destruction: mass killings, starvation as a weapon of war, and the obliteration of civilian populations under the pretense of maintaining national unity.
By the war’s end in 1970, millions of lives had been lost. The Igbo were stripped of their properties, political positions, and dignity. Biafra’s failure was not due to a lack of resolve but to an underestimation of the lengths to which the Nigerian state and its foreign backers would go. The Igbo assumed they were fighting soldiers; they did not anticipate a war on civilians, where tanks and air raids rained terror upon villages.
Since then, the Igbo have returned to Nigeria, grinding their teeth but channeling their energies into rebuilding their lives through commerce and ingenuity. Yet, the scars of Biafra linger. The Igbo homeland remains heavily policed and militarized, with even minor disturbances treated as national security threats. Meanwhile, some factions in Nigeria invoke the war in their rhetoric, threatening violence and deriding the Igbo as occupying an area that is a “tiny dot” in Nigeria These are not merely words—they are provocations that ignore the lessons of history.
For those who casually talk of war or fantasize about forcing the Igbo to flee again, it’s crucial to understand one thing: the dynamics of conflict have changed. The Igbo have learned from Biafra. They are no longer confined to a “dot” but are everywhere, contributing to Nigeria’s economy and building homes far from their ancestral lands. They will not retreat to be cornered and crushed again.
And war itself has evolved. It is no longer fought with soldiers who can be dispatched to distant territories while leaders issue commands from comfortable enclaves. Drones and modern weaponry have democratized destruction. In today’s world, no region can claim immunity from the fires they set elsewhere—ask Russia, in their flirtations with Ukraine.
So, let this be a warning: watch your words and actions. The fires of Biafra burned too hot, and the ashes are still smoldering. Those who continue to stoke these embers risk starting an inferno that no one—not even the instigators—will be able to extinguish.
Let us learn from the past and choose dialogue, empathy, and unity over divisiveness. Nigeria cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of its history.
_______
♦Publisher of the Drum Magazine, Dr. Emeaba Emeaba is an author and entrepreneur based in Nigeria and the United States
Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo has sparked controversy within her Democratic Party circle by publicly endorsing the contentious $4.4 billion Houston ISD bond less than two weeks before the upcoming election. In a recent social media post, Hidalgo revealed that a recent tour of an HISD school facility had shed light on the urgent need for additional funding, despite the Texas Education Agency’s (TEA) recent takeover of the district.
The bond, which is divided into two separate propositions, has faced significant backlash in recent months. Surprisingly, both Harris County Republicans and Democrats have united in opposition to the bond, citing concerns about potential mismanagement by the current leadership.
However, Hidalgo’s stance is rooted in her firsthand observations during the school tour. She raised the alarm at the inadequate conditions she witnessed, such as a mere fence separating the exterior from six classrooms, a musty smell emanating from the library due to a damaged HVAC system, and using mobile units from 1990 that were only designed to last 10 years. Additionally, she noted that the narrow walkways and lack of proper canopies made it difficult for students and staff during inclement weather, and classrooms’ heating and cooling systems were insufficient. Indeed, Hidalgo’s decision to support the bond is based on her commitment to addressing the pressing needs of HISD students and staff, as highlighted by her eye-opening visit to the school facility.
To provide a comprehensive understanding of the Bond Proposal, let’s break it down: The proposal consists of two parts – Proposition A and Proposition B. Proposition A aims to enhance the district’s buildings and facilities. If approved, HISD will have the opportunity to borrow $3.96 billion for crucial repairs and upgrades. On the other hand, Proposition B focuses on enhancing technology in HISD schools, with a proposed borrowing of $440 million to modernize technology across all schools.
The Bond Proposal currently under consideration is undeniably significant, representing the first time in 12 years that HISD has sought funding for improvements. If approved, it would also become the largest bond in the history of the state of Texas. Major supporters of the bond, such as the Houston Food Bank, the Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Houston, Mental Health America of Greater Houston, and Children at Risk, have valid concerns. They are particularly focused on the challenges faced by students in deteriorating school facilities.
However, there might be a glaring oversight in their assessment – the ability of HISD’s current leadership to effectively manage this initiative. Since assuming the role of Superintendent of the Houston Independent School District in June of 2023, Mike Miles has consistently been making headlines, albeit for all the wrong reasons. Despite his responsibilities in organizing, leading, directing, policy-making, and execution, Miles has failed to pass every test required to excel in his position. He has consistently struggled to lead this school district. Teachers are feeling distressed and uncertain about their roles, parents are worried about their children’s future, and students are losing interest in their education. The situation at HISD is dire, and it is clear that a change in leadership may be necessary to restore trust and stability within the district.
It is not surprising that former Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and other local leaders who oppose the bond have expressed concerns regarding this proposal. They criticized Miles and his administration for not seeking sufficient input in developing the bond proposal. Bishop James Dixon, who heads the local National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) chapter, also criticized the lack of transparency in the bond proposal process. The Harris County Democratic Party Executive Committee voted unanimously to oppose it. Their party Chair Mike Doyle suggested that the funds should be in the hands of an elected representative, not Miles.
These criticisms underscore the critical need for transparency and community involvement in decision-making processes, particularly when it comes to allocating public funds. Superintendent Miles failed to actively engage all stakeholders, including community members and organizations, to ensure that the needs and priorities of the people were adequately addressed. The opposition ultimately stems from a lack of trust. Many believe that Miles cannot be trusted to responsibly manage billions in taxpayer money.
In less than two weeks, voters will see HISD’s bond divided into two items on their ballots, one totaling approximately $4 billion and the other around $400 million. Voters must carefully consider the implications of passing such a large bond, especially when there are concerns about the leadership within HISD. Judge Hidalgo and other supporters of this bond must move beyond their emotions. It is widely recognized that HISD is facing challenges and requires assistance. Ultimately, the success of this bond will depend on not just the amount of funding allocated, but also on the ability of HISD’s leadership to effectively implement and oversee its use.
♦Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, PhD, is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
-
Anthony Obi Ogbo2 weeks agoBreaking the Stronghold: The Challenge of Unseating Nigeria’s Sitting Presidents
-
News5 days ago‘Musk Must Fall’: National Protest Set to Coincide with Billionaire’s Birthday
-
News5 days agoLatinas for Trump co-founder blasts ‘inhumane’ immigrant arrests
-
News2 days agoHuge – Judge blocks Trump’s election executive order
-
News2 days ago700 Marines Sent to Los Angeles as Riots Escalate, Trump Administration Confirms
-
News2 days agoIsrael attacks Iran’s nuclear sites and its top military leaders. Iran retaliates with drones