It is becoming increasingly easy to identify those who are merely pretending to support the reelection of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in the 2027 general elections.
You do not need sophisticated political analysis to see it. Simply observe their sustained commentary on the ongoing geopolitical tensions involving the United States, Israel, and Iran.
Why does this matter?
Because the positions individuals take in global security debates often reveal their deeper ideological alignments and strategic preferences. In my personal conviction, many of those loudly criticizing the United States in the current international conflict are the same individuals who claim to be loyal members of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and supporters of President Tinubu.
This contradiction deserves attention.
The collaboration and strategic engagement of the United States within Nigeria’s broader security architecture is, in my view, a welcome and necessary development. Nigeria has faced prolonged security challenges ranging from terrorism to insurgency and organized violence. International cooperation — including intelligence sharing, counter-terrorism partnerships, and security collaboration — has been critical to stabilizing parts of the country and strengthening the fight against extremist networks.
Any serious stakeholder who truly desires peace and security in Nigeria should recognize the value of such cooperation.
Therefore, when individuals publicly condemn the United States’ actions against Iran while simultaneously benefiting from the security partnerships that help protect Nigeria, it raises legitimate questions.
In my view, anyone who aggressively opposes U.S. actions against Iran in this context is indirectly questioning the legitimacy of the same Western security partnerships that contribute to Nigeria’s internal stability. Taken to its logical conclusion, such a position begins to resemble sympathy for actors whose geopolitical posture has repeatedly been linked to instability in several regions.
That may sound uncomfortable, but it is the reality.
This concern becomes even more striking when we reflect on past developments involving Nigeria’s security crisis.
When international headlines once carried allegations of genocide in Nigeria during remarks attributed to former U.S. President Donald Trump, Iran already maintained diplomatic representation through its embassy in Nigeria. Yet at the height of that controversy and humanitarian concern, the Iranian diplomatic mission was largely silent.
There were no strong public interventions. No visible diplomatic urgency.
However, the moment an Israeli envoy publicly referenced Iran as a potential sponsor of terrorism in Nigeria, the silence suddenly disappeared. Only then did the Iranian envoy step forward into the media spotlight to declare that Iran was willing to support Nigeria in counter-terrorism efforts.
For many observers, that response felt like medicine after death.
Diplomatic silence in moments of crisis often speaks volumes. When voices suddenly emerge only after accusations surface, it naturally raises questions about priorities, motivations, and sincerity.
These broader geopolitical dynamics are precisely why the political camp surrounding President Tinubu must remain vigilant.
Within the APC today are individuals whose loyalty to the party appears to be more opportunistic than ideological. Many of them — particularly some voices from northern political circles, along with a few from the south — openly position themselves as party loyalists while consistently amplifying narratives that contradict the strategic interests of the administration.
Their social media activity tells a revealing story.
Watch their commentary on X and other platforms carefully. Their tone, their alliances, and their ideological leanings often expose where they truly stand.
And if political winds change ahead of the 2027 elections, these same individuals will likely be among the first to reposition themselves on the opposing side.
They are political moles.
Their allegiance is not rooted in principle or long-term belief in the APC’s direction. Instead, it appears tied to one simple calculation: remaining in the camp they believe is most likely to win.
Among the voices frequently cited in these discussions are figures such as Bashir Ahmad, Garba Adamu, and Isa Ali Pantami, whose commentary on social media platforms has drawn attention within political circles.
These examples illustrate a broader pattern.
There are individuals within the APC today who are not necessarily committed to the party’s long-term vision or the leadership of President Tinubu. Instead, they are positioning themselves strategically within what they perceive to be the dominant political camp.
But politics is dynamic.
And when circumstances shift, convenience-driven loyalty often disappears just as quickly as it appeared.
This is why vigilance within the party is essential as Nigeria moves closer to the 2027 elections.
True political commitment is demonstrated not merely by party membership, but by consistency of principles, alignment with national security interests, and genuine support for the leadership one claims to defend.
Anything less is not loyalty.
It is simply political survival dressed up as party allegiance.
0 Comments