Columnists question depth of President Tinubu's political authority despite domestic control

A recent opinion column published in Nigerian media outlets examines the nature of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s political power, contrasting his domestic authority with his perceived international standing. The article, authored by Suleiman A. Suleiman and appearing in both the Daily Trust and Vanguard on October 26, 2026, argues that while Tinubu has established a firm grip on the Nigerian state, his leadership lacks the broad-based popular legitimacy that characterized previous administrations. The piece posits that Tinubu’s power is maintained through institutional control and economic leverage rather than ideological belief or personal charisma.

The author notes that Tinubu has demonstrated a capacity for conciliation by integrating former political critics into his government, a strategy distinct from the confrontational approaches of predecessors such as former President Olusegun Obasanjo. Unlike Obasanjo, who was frequently involved in open political disputes with governors and lawmakers, Tinubu is described as generally forgiving. The column highlights that Tinubu did not assume office by accident or through the direct enthronement by a single faction, but rather through personal political effort, a rarity in Nigerian leadership at that level.

Background

The analysis places Tinubu’s current tenure in the context of Nigeria’s post-1999 democratic history, asserting that he sits above his party and the nation in a manner unprecedented since the return to civilian rule. The author points to the removal of Senator Abdullahi Adamu as Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC) within weeks of Tinubu assuming office as an early signal of this centralized control. This move effectively eliminated internal dissent within the ruling party, which typically serves as a check on presidential power.

The column details the extent of Tinubu’s influence over key state institutions, including the cabinet, the National Assembly, governors, security agencies, and anti-corruption bodies. It is noted that the National Assembly has become exceptionally pliant, often passing executive bills in less than 48 hours, sometimes before members have fully reviewed them. Additionally, the author states that Tinubu has induced the defection of nearly all governors to his party, either in name or in function. The piece also mentions that criticism from media, civil society, and labour unions has been significantly blunted, with only a few notable exceptions remaining.

Why it matters

The core argument of the piece is that Tinubu’s power, while absolute in practice, lacks the Weberian sense of authority backed by popular admiration. The author contrasts Tinubu with his predecessors: Obasanjo, who possessed the charisma of a former head of state and national hero; Muhammadu Buhari, who was the face of a political movement with over 10 million loyal votes per election for nearly 20 years; and Goodluck Jonathan, who commanded unwavering loyalty despite coming to office by accident. According to the column, Tinubu’s coalition is held together by the depth of his financial resources or the fear of job loss in an economy that has become harsher for most Nigerians, rather than by ideological commitment to his programme. This distinction suggests that while Tinubu is the "lion" of the domestic political jungle, his authority may be viewed as cosmetic on the international stage, where such personal charisma and broad mandate are often expected.

What happens next

The provided sources do not outline specific upcoming events, dates, or pending decisions related to this political analysis. The text is an opinion piece focused on characterizing the current state of presidential power rather than forecasting future political developments or legislative actions.