Power, Opposition and Democracy in Nigeria: Why Critics Say Political Space Is Shrinking Under Tinubu
Nigeria's opposition is often portrayed as weak, but many political observers argue that the issue is not simply a lack of strength. Instead, they contend that opposition parties are operating under increasingly difficult political conditions that limit their ability to challenge the ruling government effectively.
Supporters of this view argue that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu benefited from decades of robust opposition politics before assuming office, enjoying the freedom to criticize successive administrations and build his political network without what they describe as the level of sustained pressure now being experienced by many of his opponents. They believe today's political environment has become far less accommodating for dissenting voices, raising concerns about the health of Nigeria's democratic institutions.
Historical comparisons are frequently cited to support this argument. During President Olusegun Obasanjo's administration, tensions between the Federal Government and Lagos State escalated over the creation of additional local government development areas and the activities of the Oodua People's Congress (OPC). Although the disagreements were significant, critics note that Obasanjo did not declare a state of emergency in Lagos or remove the elected state government despite the constitutional disputes.
Similarly, the late President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua possessed extensive constitutional powers and could have pursued investigations into allegations surrounding Alpha Beta Consulting, a company long linked in public discourse to Tinubu and Lagos State's revenue collection system. However, such action was never taken, and no major federal crackdown followed.
Former President Goodluck Jonathan has also been cited as an example of restraint. Despite facing fierce political opposition from Tinubu and the then-emerging All Progressives Congress (APC), Jonathan did not deploy the judiciary or other state institutions to disqualify Tinubu over longstanding controversies surrounding his academic records and other allegations that had circulated in the public domain. Those allegations have remained politically contentious, but no Nigerian court has ruled that they disqualified Tinubu from contesting elections, while Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing.
The same comparison is extended to former President Muhammadu Buhari. Critics argue that Buhari also possessed significant constitutional powers but did not intervene in ways they believe could have prevented Tinubu's political rise. They point to controversies surrounding U.S. records, including FBI and other federal documents that later became the subject of legal battles initiated by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar. Those disputes attracted international attention, yet they did not stop Tinubu's emergence as president, and the allegations remain matters of legal and political debate rather than established findings of misconduct.
Against this backdrop, critics reject claims that Nigeria's opposition has simply become ineffective. Rather, they argue that President Tinubu is using the enormous powers of the presidency in ways that have weakened political rivals and encouraged defections to the ruling APC, creating what they describe as an increasingly uneven political landscape. They contend that the growing concentration of political influence around the presidency risks undermining democratic competition.
Nigeria's Constitution grants substantial authority to the office of the President, making it one of the most powerful executive positions on the African continent. Political analysts note that every Nigerian president has inherited these powers. The debate, therefore, is not whether such powers exist, but how they are exercised and whether sufficient respect is shown for the independence of institutions such as the judiciary, electoral bodies, anti-corruption agencies and other democratic safeguards.
Those expressing concern argue that previous administrations, despite their shortcomings, generally exercised greater restraint in dealing with political opponents. They maintain that such restraint helped preserve democratic stability and allowed opposition politics to flourish, even during periods of intense rivalry.
Ultimately, critics caution that political power is temporary. They argue that every administration should recognize the importance of protecting democratic institutions rather than weakening them for short-term political advantage. Nigeria's recent political history, they note, demonstrates that no leader remains in office forever, citing former President Muhammadu Buhari's exit from power as a reminder that today's officeholders will eventually become tomorrow's opposition. They therefore urge the current administration to govern with moderation, respect institutional independence and uphold democratic principles that will outlast any individual government.
0 Comments