By Mobolaji Sanusi
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
— Nelson Mandela(1918-2013).
The ban on political campaigns was lifted in August/September, but campaigns are only just gathering momentum. By mid-October to early November, all major political parties will be in full campaign swing, and the heat of the January 2027 elections will be felt across the 774 local government areas and the Federal Capital Territory.
The freedom offered by the electioneering window is enormous, but it comes with a clear caveat prohibiting hate speech, violence, and other activities inimical to public order.
Politicians, being creatures of mischief with often scant regard for the rule of law, have a proclivity for breaching these rules. They constantly seek ways, legal or otherwise, to outwit their opponents, with little regard for societal wellbeing as long as their selfish interests are served.
This campaign window is no exception. Politicians across the board are deeply involved in brazen breaches of electoral rules, and for want of enforcement tools, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) appears helpless. Hateful rhetoric rather than lofty policy ideas now fills the political space, and this is more rampant in the northern part of the country. Never in the history of intelligence leadership has the country had a more tolerant leadership than the Department of State Services (DSS) currently has. This is reflected in the Department’s accommodating disposition toward dissenting views, especially in the North, which in recent times has shown clear intolerance toward the current federal administration. Yet an administration that is led by a northerner is principally responsible for the current abysmal state of the nation’s general wellbeing.
Even though the current government’s economic reforms may have brought hardship felt across Nigeria, the North’s modus operandi of venting anger against the President has been contemptuous of caution and decorum.
It has become routine in the North to encounter processions promoting the ” Tinubu Must Go” movement. One such gathering was scheduled for last weekend in Kano state but was halted by the police. The convener, Abba Hikima, a lawyer, wrote on his verified Facebook page that the police sealed off the facility paid for to host what he described as a “non-partisan platform set up to sensitise Nigerians and mobilise voters against Tinubu in the 2027 elections over economic hardship.”
It is judicially settled that Nigerians have the inalienable right to assemble and to protest peacefully. In practice, however, there is often a thin line between a peaceful and a violent procession.
Citizens have a constitutional right to freely associate to exchange ideas and educate themselves on the need to vote out any administration. The concern of the state should be how they go about achieving that mission. In the convener of the Kano movement’s personal view, which may not reflect the general consensus, “Tinubu has failed,” possibly because he’s not a northerner but that does not give them licence to insist in October 2026 that the President “must go” when his current mandate runs until May 2027, and with the constitutional right to seek reelection that he is presently exploring.
Democracy provides for periodic elections precisely to allow the electorate to use their votes to retain or remove incumbents.
While the rights to freedom of speech and association are guaranteed under the Constitution, hiding under that guarantee to act in a manner capable of breaching public peace and order is unacceptable. Hikima insists they are “not criminals, not thugs, not hooligans,” but it behoves law enforcement agencies to take precautionary measures to prevent a breakdown of law and order.
All Nigerians, irrespective of region or ancestry, should endeavour to respect the rights of others, especially when it concerns the President. I sincerely believe that Nigerians, including those from the North, have a right to be aggrieved by the economic hardship. However, such grievances must be expressed within the reasonable bounds of the law.
This does not appear to be the case, judging by the routine harassment of anything associated with Tinubu in parts of the North. Last month, youths in the Jega area of Kebbi State destroyed posters and billboards of President Tinubu and Governor Nasir Idris and damaged vehicles on major roads in the town, under the pretext of venting anger against the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).
A similar scenario occurred in Borno State recently, where persons wearing “Tinubu Must Go” T-shirts caused a breach of public peace. Five of them — Baba Aji Gremani, Mustapha Abba Yemen, Abacha Mohammed Ali, Adam Umar Gubio and Abdulhamid Mohammed — were arrested and later released by the police for printing and wearing T-shirts with the inciting inscription.
Tinubu was elected by Nigerians of all ethnic backgrounds and should be allowed to complete his constitutionally permitted tenure, just as he also has constitutionally guaranteed right to seek re-election. Only the ballot can decide his re-election or otherwise. Destroying the President’s campaign billboards, attacking his campaign vehicles, or chanting “Tinubu Must Go” in a violent street procession, is wrong and should not be tolerated. It is a dangerous trend that, if replicated in other regions, could set the country ablaze.
In realistic terms, Tinubu has done more to promote northern presidential interests than many living northern leaders. Atiku Abubakar contested the presidency under Tinubu’s Action Congress in 2007. Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, incumbent national security adviser, was given the same platform by Tinubu in 2011 to contest for the presidency. But for God and Tinubu’s political benevolence, Muhammadu Buhari would not have become President, until Tinubu yielded his strong political goodwill to him. How would Buhari have defeated Atiku in the APC presidential primary held in Lagos without Tinubu’s deft political manoeuvring? It is still difficult to understand why northerners will not direct their grievances at their own successive leaders that have left the region pauperised despite having ruled the country as both military and civilian leaders.
The poverty in the North was not caused by Tinubu. Sons of the North have governed the country longer than sons from other regions, with no visible improvement in the general wellbeing of the majority of northerners. It is curious to now see vulnerable people in the North directing misplaced anger at Tinubu.
No democrat in his right senses would argue that any leader is indispensable and this rule applies to the current situation in the country. But there’s a question begging for an answer: Are those jostling to wrest power from Tinubu that at one time or the other been beneficiaries of his political generosity and have shown no clear-cut realistic plans that are different from Tinubu’s ongoing reforms better alternatives?
For as long as it’s trite that uneasy lies the head that wears the crown, Tinubu should be held responsible for the policies and decisions of his government. The President has been consistent in defending his reforms by insisting they were done in the best interest of the country and that the dividends would be felt by Nigerians as the reforms become more rooted with time. That is his strong position that stands to be contested by whoever feels otherwise.
However, part of the consequences of his reforms is the hardship in the country, from which yours sincerely is not insulated. I doubt if President Tinubu is asking for anyone’s pity because he asked for the job. Nigerians should learn to express their displeasure peacefully. The resort to incitement, violence and impunity by some people in the North or elsewhere to express disaffection toward the president should be discouraged and not condoned.
To the sincerely and insincerely aggrieved people in the North or elsewhere: you have a right to oppose Tinubu, but what you cannot do is prevent those supporting Tinubu from campaigning in the North or anywhere else. As Eleanor Holmes Norton once said: “The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of people you don’t agree with.” On this note, I rest my case for this week.
•Sanusi, former MD/CEO of Lagos State Signage and Advertisement Agency, is currently Managing Partner at AMS RELIABLE SOLICITORS. (WhatsApp only: 07011117777)