“No One Can Defeat Tinubu?” A Professor’s Provocative Claim on National Television, Money Power, Governors, INEC, and the Future of Nigeria’s Democracy
In a statement that has sent shockwaves across social media, political circles, and national discourse, Professor Najeem Bayo declared on national television that “no one can defeat President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.” His comments—bold, controversial, and deeply political—have sparked nationwide debate about the state of Nigeria’s democracy, the power of incumbency, and the influence of money in electioneering.
This blog post explores the full implications of Professor Bayo’s televised remarks, contextualizes them within Nigeria’s political landscape, and examines what they reveal about the intersection of governance, electoral strategy, public sentiment, and democratic integrity.
1. What Did Professor Najeem Bayo Really Say?
During a widely broadcast television program, Professor Najeem Bayo stated, in no uncertain terms, “no one can defeat President Tinubu.” According to his remarks:
He asserted that President Tinubu has the backing of 31 state governors, making it politically impossible to unseat him.
He claimed that these governors would be willing to “dedicate three months of allocations” to support Tinubu’s election efforts.
He said that money would exchange hands for votes, implying a transactional system of securing electoral victory.
He suggested that if election results did not favour Tinubu, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) might experience a glitch—an insinuation that the electoral umpire could be manipulated if outcomes looked unfavourable.
He also boldly stated that, given public hardship, people could be “paid N20,000 per voter” to secure their participation and support.
These words, coming from a professor on national television, reflect a raw and provocative view of how political power might be maintained in Nigeria. The sheer audacity of the claims—especially about financial inducements and potential interference in electoral processes—has captured widespread attention and controversy.
2. Incumbency Advantage and the Power of Governors
One of Bayo’s core arguments centres on the idea that President Tinubu’s influence stems from the support of governors. Indeed, Nigeria is a federal republic composed of 36 states and a Federal Capital Territory, each with a governor—who can be a powerful grassroots political force in election mobilization.
Political analysts have long noted that governors often wield disproportionate influence in elections because they control local patronage networks, administrative resources, and party structures. While President Tinubu’s party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), has leveraged this advantage, it’s important to recognize that:
Governors’ support does not always translate to automatic votes. Political loyalty in Nigeria can shift rapidly, especially when public sentiment is volatile.
Opposition figures, such as Peter Obi and Atiku Abubakar, have been actively building coalitions to challenge the APC ahead of the 2027 elections. These efforts reflect ongoing political contestation rather than a one-way march to victory for any single candidate.
Thus, while Bayo’s comment reflects a belief in political machinery and incumbent advantage, it does not necessarily reflect the full complexity of Nigeria’s evolving political landscape.
3. Money and Politics: Transactional Democracy in Nigeria
Perhaps the most striking part of Bayo’s televised assertion was the suggestion that election outcomes could be influenced by financial inducements—such as allocating funds for three months to secure votes or directly paying voters.
In Nigeria, money politics has long been a concern. Political parties often spend large sums on mobilisation, delegate influence, and campaigns. Independent observers and election watchdogs have highlighted concerns about vote buying, cash incentives, and undue influence in elections as threats to democratic fairness.
However, there is no publicly confirmed evidence that the government or any official entity is planning to allocate federal funds specifically to buy voter support in the 2027 elections. Nigeria’s electoral and financial institutions are legally prohibited from such practices under the law. Nonetheless, the perception of money influencing election outcomes remains widespread and contentious.
4. The “Glitch in INEC” Remark and Electoral Integrity
Another controversial part of Bayo’s statement was his reference to the possibility of a “glitch in INEC” if it seems Tinubu might be losing the election.
This comment, whether rhetorical or cynical, touches on a sensitive subject in Nigerian politics: distrust in the electoral process. Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has faced both praise and criticism in past elections. Its deployment of technology like the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) has improved voter accreditation and result transmission in some areas, but allegations of irregularities persist, especially during tightly contested polls.
While Bayo’s comment does not represent an official assessment of INEC’s capacity, it echoes public anxieties about electoral transparency, accountability, and fairness—issues that will remain deeply relevant as Nigeria approaches its 2027 elections.
5. Nigeria’s Hardship: Economic Realities and Public Frustration
Bayo’s remarks about hardship and potential financial compensation to voters must be viewed in the context of Nigeria’s real economic challenges.
Under the Tinubu administration, Nigeria has implemented major economic reforms, such as:
Removal of fuel subsidies;
Devaluation of the naira;
Reforms aimed at liberalising the economy and attracting foreign investment.
These reforms, while designed to improve long-term economic stability, have contributed to short-term pain for many citizens. Nigeria has seen high inflation, rising food prices, and increased cost of living, sparking public frustration and social movements. In 2024, for example, nationwide protests under the hashtag #EndBadGovernance reflected widespread dissatisfaction with economic hardship and governance, with demonstrators demanding relief and policy change.
Thus, when Bayo referenced hardship and financial incentives, he was articulating a sentiment widely felt by segments of the population—though the idea of Bush-style vote buying remains highly controversial and legally problematic.
6. Opposition Voices and the Political Battleground
Bayo’s comments also bring into sharp focus the contrast between incumbency narratives and opposition ambitions.
Political figures like Peter Obi, former presidential candidate of the Labour Party, have maintained strong followings and have continued to be seen as critical voices against the APC’s policies. Former Ekiti Governor Ayo Fayose even described Obi as “the only opposition voice” in Nigeria—though he noted that defeating the APC would be extremely difficult.
Meanwhile, opposition coalitions, such as the alliance between Atiku Abubakar and Obi under the African Democratic Congress (ADC) platform, are actively working to build a unified front to challenge the ruling party ahead of 2027. Analysts have pointed out that this reflects Nigeria’s still competitive political environment, despite the ruling party’s organisational strength.
7. Democratic Health: Between Realism and Fatalism
The professor’s television proclamation that “no one can defeat Tinubu” reflects one perspective—a deterministic view rooted in the power of incumbency, party structure, and financial resources.
But to dismiss the possibility of political change outright would be to overlook Nigeria’s dynamic democratic history:
Nigerians have swung political tides before, rejecting incumbents and voting for change when motivated by compelling alternatives and public demand.
Civil society, young voters, media engagement, and increased political awareness contribute to a more informed and politically active electorate than in past decades.
Nigeria’s democracy is not static; it is contingent on political engagement, policy performance, and the aspirations of its diverse population.
8. What This Means for Nigeria’s Future
Professor Bayo’s remarks are controversial because they force Nigerians to confront deep questions about the integrity of their political system:
Is electoral victory merely a function of money and governors?
Does incumbency guarantee political success in a democracy?
What role does public sentiment and economic hardship play in shaping electoral outcomes?
How strong are democratic institutions like INEC in safeguarding free and fair elections?
Answers to these questions will shape Nigeria’s political trajectory in the run-up to the 2027 general election. What remains clear is that Nigerian democracy is still very much alive—but it will require transparency, engagement, accountability, and policy relevance to meet the expectations of its citizens.
Conclusion: A Provocative Statement, a National Conversation
Professor Najeem Bayo’s televised assertion that “no one can defeat President Tinubu” has reignited a powerful debate about political power, money politics, incumbency, electoral integrity, and democratic legitimacy in Nigeria.
While his words reflect one dimension of political calculation, they do not foreclose the possibility of meaningful opposition, voter agency, or democratic contestation. Instead, they remind Nigerians that the health of their democracy depends not on the loudest pronouncements, but on robust institutions, citizen participation, and transparent electoral processes.
As Nigeria approaches another pivotal election cycle, the real battle will not be between governments and opposition figures but between democratic aspirations and political complacency.
0 Comments