The composition of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s 2027 presidential campaign council has opened an important debate that goes beyond partisan politics. The real question before Nigerians is not simply who is mobilising votes for the President, but what kind of political leadership the campaign represents and what standards of accountability citizens should demand from those seeking their mandate.
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has described the campaign council as a “rehabilitation centre” for individuals facing unresolved corruption questions. The language is deliberately provocative, but beneath the political rhetoric lies a legitimate democratic question: when public officials previously suspended or investigated over allegations involving public resources return to prominent political positions, has justice been concluded, or has politics simply moved ahead of accountability?
President Tinubu’s newly constituted campaign council includes former Humanitarian Affairs Minister Betta Edu as Director of Women Mobilisation, among other prominent political actors.
Edu was suspended in January 2024 after controversy over an instruction concerning the proposed transfer of ₦585.19 million to a private account. President Tinubu subsequently directed the EFCC to investigate the matter, and Edu was questioned by the commission.
Importantly, however, an allegation or investigation is not the same thing as a conviction. Democratic societies must protect the presumption of innocence and due process. The more serious problem, therefore, is not merely that an investigated individual has been appointed to a campaign structure; it is the absence of clear public communication about the status and outcome of such investigations.
That distinction is fundamental.
If an investigation clears an individual, the public deserves to know. If charges are filed, Nigerians deserve to know. If a prosecution is ongoing, the public should equally know. What undermines democratic confidence is not necessarily the appointment itself, but opacity surrounding the accountability process.
The same principle applies to former NSITF Chairman Ngozi Olejeme. Available case information indicates that she was arraigned in October 2025 on an eight-count charge involving alleged conversion, transfer and possession of proceeds of unlawful activity, and that the case remained at the prosecution stage. She pleaded not guilty.
That means responsible political commentary must avoid declaring anyone guilty before the courts do so. But it also means political parties should understand that public confidence is itself an electoral asset.
The 2027 election should not become merely a contest of personalities, endorsements, defections and campaign machinery.
It should become a referendum on performance, accountability, competence and the direction of the Nigerian state.
There is a profound contradiction confronting Nigerian politics. On one hand, the Tinubu administration argues that its reforms rescued Nigeria from a potentially deeper fiscal crisis. The World Bank similarly described subsidy removal and foreign-exchange reform as necessary steps toward rebuilding fiscal space and macroeconomic stability.
On the other hand, those reforms have imposed enormous short-term costs on citizens.
The IMF’s 2026 assessment estimated that poverty had reached 63 percent under its national poverty-line measure and that 27 million Nigerians experienced food insecurity in late 2025. It also projected economic growth of about 4.1 percent for 2026 while acknowledging that higher food and transport costs continue to weigh heavily on households.
This is where the 2027 election becomes particularly consequential.
For the government, the argument will be that reforms take time to mature.
For the opposition, the counterargument will be that citizens cannot eat future projections.
Both arguments contain elements of truth.
Macroeconomic stabilisation matters. But so does the lived experience of the market woman whose income cannot purchase the food she bought two years ago; the civil servant whose salary has lost purchasing power; the student whose family struggles with educational costs; the farmer facing insecurity; and the young graduate searching for meaningful employment.
A government cannot govern only through economic indicators. It must ultimately translate macroeconomic improvement into human welfare and dignity.
ADC presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar’s proposal to subsidise fuel production has reopened one of Nigeria’s oldest economic controversies.
The proposal should neither be dismissed as automatically irresponsible nor accepted without scrutiny.
Nigeria’s previous subsidy regime was deeply problematic. The World Bank reported that petrol subsidy costs rose to 32.4 percent of total federal revenues in 2022, exceeding combined allocations to health, education and social protection, while costing about 2.2 percent of GDP.
Therefore, simply returning to the old opaque subsidy architecture would be economically dangerous.
But the opposite extreme is equally problematic: removing a subsidy without constructing adequate social protection, public transportation, productive-sector support and transparent mechanisms for passing fiscal savings to citizens.
The World Bank itself warned in 2023 that subsidy reform needed compensatory measures to protect poor and vulnerable households.
This provides an important framework for evaluating Atiku’s proposal.
The question should not be:
“Subsidy or no subsidy?”
The better question is:
“What is the most transparent, fiscally sustainable and socially just mechanism for reducing the cost of energy and transportation for Nigerians while protecting public finances?”
A targeted intervention may therefore deserve consideration, but only if it is capped, budgeted, independently audited, publicly reported and time-bound.
Every naira spent must be traceable.
Every litre of petroleum supported must be accounted for.
Every beneficiary must be identifiable.
And every subsidy programme must contain an exit mechanism.
Otherwise, Nigeria risks recreating the same system of rent-seeking and corruption that made the old subsidy regime unsustainable.
Political campaigns are not merely collections of politicians. Campaign teams communicate the values, priorities and political culture of the candidates they represent.
The choice of campaign personnel therefore matters.
A campaign council populated by experienced organisers, women leaders, youth mobilisers, technocrats, community leaders and grassroots actors can communicate inclusiveness and institutional competence.
Conversely, a campaign structure dominated by political loyalists, defectors and individuals facing unresolved accountability questions may reinforce the perception that political loyalty is more valuable than public trust.
That perception is dangerous for democracy.
Political parties should understand that Nigerians are becoming increasingly sophisticated in evaluating political leadership. Social media has created a new political public sphere where citizens scrutinise appointments, speeches, spending, policies and political contradictions almost instantaneously.
The 2027 campaign cannot therefore be won simply through rallies and billboards.
It must be won through credibility.
It is easy to criticise the governing party. It is considerably harder to convince Nigerians that the alternative will govern differently.
If ADC and Atiku are presenting themselves as the alternative, Nigerians deserve more than criticism of Tinubu.
They need a detailed programme answering:
How will the government reduce inflation without destabilising macroeconomic stability?
How will it reduce the cost of transportation?
How will it increase domestic production?
How will it create millions of productive jobs?
How will it reform the petroleum sector without returning to an opaque subsidy regime?
How will it confront insecurity?
How will it strengthen institutions rather than personalities?
How will it protect public money from political interference?
How will it reduce Nigeria’s debt vulnerabilities?
How will it restore citizens’ confidence in elections and government?
The opposition must therefore resist the temptation to make “Tinubu is bad” its entire campaign philosophy.
Nigerians need to hear:
“Here is what we will do differently, here is how much it will cost, here is where the money will come from, and here is how you can hold us accountable.”
That is the language of serious democratic opposition.
The forthcoming election presents President Tinubu with an opportunity to defend his record before Nigerians.
His government can legitimately point to reforms that have improved fiscal sustainability, increased revenues and attracted positive assessments from investors and international financial institutions. Reuters reported this week that Finance Minister Taiwo Oyedele argued that the reforms helped avert a potential economic collapse, while also acknowledging their difficult social consequences.
But an incumbent government cannot ask citizens to evaluate reforms exclusively through the eyes of investors.
The ultimate test of public policy is whether ordinary citizens experience a meaningful improvement in their quality of life.
Similarly, the opposition cannot evaluate the administration exclusively through the lens of hardship while ignoring the structural problems inherited from previous administrations.
Nigeria’s crisis did not begin in 2023.
But neither should history become an excuse for present failure.
This is the central democratic bargain: governments inherit problems, but they are ultimately judged by what they do with them.
From the standpoint of public theology, political authority is not merely an instrument for acquiring power. It is a form of stewardship.
The biblical tradition repeatedly connects leadership with justice, responsibility, protection of the vulnerable and accountability before God and society. Proverbs 29:2 declares: “When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
This principle should not be reduced to partisan theology.
It is an ethical proposition about public leadership.
Political leaders hold public resources in trust. They are not owners of the state.
Therefore, corruption is not merely a legal problem. It is a moral violation of the social trust between government and citizens.
Likewise, poverty is not merely an economic statistic. It is a challenge to the moral legitimacy of public institutions.
The Nigerian state must therefore move from a politics of patronage to stewardship; from personality cults to institutions; from campaign promises to measurable commitments; and from political loyalty to public accountability.
As the 2027 campaign unfolds, Nigerians should demand a National Democratic Accountability Compact from every presidential candidate.
Every candidate should publish:
1. A five-year economic plan
With measurable targets for inflation, employment, productivity, electricity, food production and poverty reduction.
2. A transparent fiscal framework
Candidates should explain how their promises will be funded.
3. A corruption and accountability charter
Every administration should commit to publishing major public contracts, procurement information and implementation reports.
4. A social-protection framework
The poor should not be expected to absorb the entire cost of economic reform.
5. A security strategy
Citizens deserve measurable commitments on terrorism, banditry, kidnapping and communal conflict.
6. A democratic-institution reform agenda
INEC, the judiciary, anti-corruption agencies, the police and other institutions must be strengthened to operate with greater independence and public confidence.
7. A campaign integrity code
Political parties should reject vote buying, intimidation, misinformation, ethnic incitement and the weaponisation of state institutions.
The greatest commodity in the 2027 election will not be money.
It will be trust.
President Tinubu’s campaign must convince Nigerians that his difficult reforms will ultimately produce a better economy and that his political coalition represents competent and accountable leadership.
ADC, NDC must convince Nigerians that their alternative is not merely a coalition against Tinubu, but a credible programme for rebuilding Nigeria.
And Nigerians themselves must move beyond the politics of ethnic sentiment, religious mobilisation, personality worship and immediate financial inducement.
The voter must ask:
Who can make Nigeria more secure?
Who can make Nigeria more productive?
Who can protect public resources?
Who can strengthen institutions?
Who can restore dignity to the poor?
Who can unite rather than manipulate Nigerians?
The 2027 election should therefore be more than a contest between APC, ADC and NDC, Tinubu, Atiku or Obi, continuity and opposition.
It should be a national examination of the quality of Nigerian democracy.
Campaign councils will come and go. Political alliances will shift. Politicians will defect. New slogans will emerge.
But the fundamental aspiration of Nigerians remains remarkably consistent:
They want a country where hard work can produce dignity, where public resources serve the public, where government is accountable, where elections matter, and where the future is not permanently sacrificed to the interests of the politically connected.
That is the referendum that every political party must ultimately face.
And in a democracy, the final campaign council is the Nigerian voter.
Cliff Stanley
Political Scientist, Public Theologian, Cliffstanley3@gmail.com 07032826319