I was reluctant to make this disclosure. For weeks, I weighed silence against the obligation to be transparent. In the end, a video forced the matter: footage of my brotherly friend, Omoyele Sowore, leading a Tinubu Must Go procession. It reminded me that this dilemma has a public dimension I can no longer keep to myself.

Let me begin with context. Sowore and I have maintained a cordial relationship despite our different orientations his rooted in activist journalism, mine in strategic communication. When I was removed from federal public service after my well-documented altercation with then Finance Minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Sowore used his platform, energy, and resources to defend me at a time when few were willing to be publicly associated with the controversy. That kind of solidarity is hard to forget.

When I later served as a communications consultant to a sensitive office and our media placements appeared on Sahara Reporters, which he still publishes, a misunderstanding followed. During my transit in New York on my way to Las Vegas, he declined to see me, suspecting, I believe, that I had come to compromise his editorial independence on behalf of the then National Security Adviser, Colonel Sambo Dasuki. He treated the man the same way.

Ironically, he and Dasuki later found common ground in a DSS detention cell, and were released the same day. I have never sought a favour from Sowore that he refused, except for one occasion when he confronted me over an article supporting Okonjo Iwealas WTO aspiration. I respected his candour then, as I do now.

I offer this context not to demonstrate proximity to power on either side, but because the dilemma I am about to describe only makes sense against this background.

A few weeks ago, Kashifu Inuwa a highly respected technocrat from the North and a strong supporter of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the First Lady, Remi Tinubu invited me to his office. Known nationwide for championing digital literacy and transformation that has empowered training centres and young people, Kashifu came straight to the point: he wanted my professional guidance in building a movement.

Before I could respond, he named it: Tinubu Must Stay for Continuity, Stability and Prosperity.

I asked why the framing was not simply Tinubu Should Stay. His explanation was strategic, not sentimental. The movement was intended as a counter-narrative to the Tinubu Must Go campaign, which he believed had gained momentum from northern opposition quarters aligned with former Vice President Atiku Abubakar. He needed a response that matched the oppositions framing without conceding its terms.

He asked me to commit within 24 hours. I requested more time, but he held firm. I told him I would return with an assessment. The question was not whether I supported the President. The question was whether I could support a campaign on terms that were professionally defensible.

I asked my team to run a perception index and sentiment analysis on recent campaigns around the President. Using PRrev PRNigerias cross-platform media monitoring software supported by NITDA the findings were sobering. Negative sentiment, especially on social media, was not just high; it showed a level of public disaffection that no honest communicator could mask with slogans or rallies.

I then consulted a cohort of young communicators professionals in their late twenties and early thirties, from different regions and with no political affiliations. I asked if they would support the Tinubu Must Stay campaign. Their initial response was lukewarm. But I pressed further. I asked them to independently assess the administrations verifiable achievements against the weight of public grievance. What they brought back was more instructive than I anticipated.

They found that Tinubu facilitated the takeoff of new medical universities not only in the South, but also in Tsafe and Funtua in the North institutions many Nigerians hardly know exist. They noted hundreds of housing units commissioned across northern states and a marked rise in federation account allocations to states and local governments, funds that previous administrations often diverted into federal intervention schemes like PTF, DFRRI and SURE P. Security improvements were equally notable: new military divisions, acquisition of sophisticated armaments, and better personnel remuneration.

These were concrete, documented, verifiable facts that had not penetrated public consciousness because communication around them had been, to put it mildly, inadequate buried in technical statistics and figures that ordinary citizens rarely engage with.

Three of the young communicators who had been most reluctant became the most thorough in their research. By the end of the exercise, they joined the movement voluntarily, without inducement. To me, that was more significant than any polling data. It suggested that the deficit was not in the administrations record it was in the communication of that record.

When I returned to Kashifu, I recommended that the campaign be strictly evidence-based: facts, data, documented outcomes, and verifiable comparisons. I also cautioned against attacks on opposition personalities and confrontational posturing toward anti-government movements. No hired crowds. No orchestrated demonstrations. No manufactured street energy. No faking.

The forum would contribute intellectual rigour to the national conversation, not spectacle. A communication campaign built on verifiable facts does not need to shout down its critics. It simply needs to be heard.

Then, as I finalised my position, Sowores video emerged. My brotherly friend the man who stood with me when others did not was now supporting the very movement my professional guidance was retained to counter. I do not know whether he will formally align with the Atiku Abubakar camp, based on endorsements from initial conveners in the North.

As a student and practitioner of public relations, I believe the battle for public opinion in the months ahead will not be won by the side that shouts loudest, marches furthest, or commands the most digital noise. It will be won by the side that builds the most credible narrative around verifiable reality.

If the administrations achievements are as substantial as the data suggest, then failing to communicate them is a failure of professional executionnot a failure of governance. And that failure can be corrected.

Yushau A. Shuaib is the author of An Encounter with the Spymaster and NIPSS: MNI Versus MNIPR- Tackling Institutional Bullying. yashuaib@yashuaib.com

The post TMG vs TMS: The Communication Dilemma Over Tinubus Future appeared first on YAShuaib.

Nigerias political landscape is gradually heating up ahead of the 2027 general elections. Yet, beyond permutations of power, recent personal encounters have exposed a deeper concernhow dangerously our national discourse is drifting toward divisive narratives of religion and ethnicity.

Recently, I confronted a disturbing social media post by a purported Northern Muslim denigrating Jesus over political provocation. As a devout Muslim, I condemned the post unequivocally. Such conduct is not only irresponsible but fundamentally contradicts Islamic teachings. The Holy Quran accords profound respect to Christians and Jews, and to their scriptures, while honouring Jesus as the Messiah and the Word of God.

In urging restraint, I appreciated the solidarity shown by members of the Christian community and reminded both faiths that they share far more in common than what divides them. Yet, within hours, another troubling episode emerged. A Nigerian-born commentator based in America, Ejike Okpa, posted Facebook content portraying Muslims as terrorists. As a friend, I simply responded: I am a Muslim, not a terrorist. The reactions and comments that followed, especially from those I often referred to as Werekaci were unsettling and disgustingand it raised a fundamental question: will religion and ethnicity shape the political choices of the next generation as we approach 2027?

It was against this backdrop that I joined the Editor of Economic Confidential, Abdulrahman Abdulrazaq, in the inaugural PRNigeria Journalist vs PR Strategist podcast debate on whether an emerging opposition coalition could unseat an incumbent administration. While my colleague is an avowed supporter of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, I deliberately adopted a balanced positiongrounded in facts and objective analysis.

At the centre of current political calculations is the African Democratic Congress (ADC), which is evolving into the most formidable opposition alliance, similar to a coalition that eventually produced the All-Progressives Congress (APC), with Muhammadu Buhari as its presidential candidate. It was the coalition that ultimately unseated the then‑ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) under President Goodluck Jonathan in 2015.

The irony is striking. Several of the very architects of that 2015 APC triumph Atiku Abubakar, Rabiu Kwankwaso, Nasir el-Rufai, Rotimi Amaechi, Aminu Tambuwal, Rauf Aregbesola have now converged on the ADC to challenge the very man whose political machinery was central to that historic victory: Bola Tinubu.

History offers perspective. The 2015 Buharis APC coalition secured about 15 million votes (53%), defeating Jonathans 12 million (44%). It was a coalition built on strategy, shared grievance, and disciplined unity.

By contrast, the 2023 election was the most competitive since 1999. Tinubu won with 8.7 million votes (36.61%). Atiku Abubakar secured 6.9 million (29.07%). Peter Obi (Labour Party) garnered 6.1 million votes (25.40%), while Kwankwaso (NNPP) obtained 1.4 million votes (6.23%). Notably, the top three candidates each won 12 states, while Kwankwaso secured only Kano State.

Although Tinubu, who chose Senator Kashim Shettima as his running mate, met the constitutional threshold of 25% in at least 24 states, the geography of the vote revealed a fragmented mandate. Tinubu dominated the Southwest and parts of the North-Central, but Peter Obi achieved the unthinkable by defeating the incumbent in his Lagos stronghold, sweeping all the southeastern states and FCT. Meanwhile, Atiku Abubakar cleared most of the Northeast and Northwest.

More significantly, the combined votes of Atiku, Obi, and Kwankwaso exceeded 15 millionnearly double Tinubus tally. On paper, this arithmetic presents a compelling case for a unified opposition. Together, they commanded electoral strength across more than 25 statesenough to satisfy constitutional requirements. But elections are not won on arithmetic alone.

The real challenge lies in unity, ego management, and coalition discipline. Nigerian political history is replete with alliances that collapsed under the weight of personal ambition. The same forces that could make the opposition formidable could also render it fragile.

The 2023 experience is instructive. Obis refusal to serve as a running mate and Atikus miscalculation in overlooking Nyesom Wike as his deputy weakened the opposition and accelerated the fragmentation of the PDPa party that once governed Nigeria for sixteen years.

While an AtikuObi alignment may constitute the most formidable opposition configuration against the TinubuShettima ticket, alternative permutations are likely to be politically unviable or suicidal.

While an AtikuObi alignment would represent the strongest opposition configuration against the TinubuShettima ticket, alternative permutations may amount to political futility or suicidal.

While the opposition coalition is anchoring its campaign on prevailing insecurity and socioeconomic instability, President Tinubus administration has taken steps to address political sensitivities. Northerners occupy key security positions, including the Defence Ministers and the National Security Adviser, while prominent Christians head major economic institutions, including the Finance Ministers and the Central Bank Governormoves widely interpreted as efforts to balance concerns arising from the Muslim-Muslim ticket.

The administrations revenue reforms particularly through the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS) have also increased allocations to subnational governments via the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC). Similarly, Nigerias measured diplomatic response to external pressures, including reckless remarks by U.S. President Donald Trump on alleged religious persecution, averted unnecessary geopolitical escalation seen in countries such as Venezuela and Iran.

Yet, beyond governance, the power of incumbency remains decisive. Control of institutions, influence over political structures, and access to state resources often shape electoral outcomes beyond public sentiment.

Equally concerning is the growing intrusion of ethnoreligious sentiment into political discourse. Supporter groups across party lines have, at times, resorted to divisive rhetoric that undermines national cohesion. If unchecked, such narratives risk overshadowing critical debates on the economy, security, and governance.

There is also the question of external influence. Claims that foreign actors could shape Nigerias electoral outcomes should be approached with caution. Global experience suggests that domestic realities ultimately prevail.

For both the ruling party and the opposition, the lessons are clear. If the opposition fails to consolidate, history may repeat itself. Similarly, if the ruling party becomes power drunk or tampers with its winning formula, it could also face unexpected consequences. In the end, 2027 will not merely be a contest of candidatesit will be a test of democratic maturity.

The gladiators on both sides would do well to study history. Nigeria has seen this script beforeand the ending is rarely flattering.

Yushau A. Shuaib is the author of An Encounter with the Spymaster. Email: yashuaib@yashuaib.com

The post Can AtikuObi Unseat TinubuShettima in 2027? appeared first on YAShuaib.

President Muhammadu Buhari and VP Yomi Osinbajo

The Presidency: Osinbajo and Unquestionable Loyalty
By Yushau A. Shuaib

In September 2008, about 9 years ago, this writer published an article title “If Yar’Adua Doesn’t Die!” (https://yashuaib.com/politics/if-president-yaradua-doesnt-die/) It was a response to strong insinuations in the media on the plight of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua who was alive then but some commentators were already expressing views on expectations after his likely demise.

We are currently witnessing a similar scenario as the national discourse has shifted to debates on the ailing or recuperating President Muhammadu Buhari who left the country on January 19, 2017 for medical vacation in London after handing over power to Vice President Yemi Osinbajo to act as President.

The media is awash with views of Nigerians as well as patriotic commentators over the transfer of power and the commendable progress made so far in the absence of Buhari. Meanwhile, spin-doctors and political manipulators, in their different shades, have joined the debate, mostly on cyberspace. In some cases, the issue is coloured in sectional sentiments, political undertones and religious undercurrents.

In fact, there have been gossips on the motives behind recent fasting by some Christians in the South as well as speculations on massive prayers by some Muslims in the North over the ill-health of the president. Some scenarios are disturbing, as some comments attempt to create rift between Buhari and Osinbajo who have so far shown maturity, sincerity and respect in their mutual relationship.

President Buhari does not only trust Osinbajo, he assigns the law professor and church pastor to oversee the economic sector as the Head of the Economic Team. In fact, sensitive offices and strategic positions within that sector including the Chief Economic Adviser are domiciled under the Office of the Vice President. In more than two occasions, President Buhari has officially, through legislative mandates, handed over power to Osinbajo to act as Nigerian President.

Aside from the recent controversial and illegal disengagement of a female chartered accountant, Mrs Maryam Danna Mohammed from Niger Delta Power Holding Company (NDPHC) and the replacement of the boss of the agency with an aide of the Vice President, Professor Osinbajo has demonstrated, to some extent, unquestionable loyalty to President Buhari in his utterances and actions. A politically conscious person, Osinbajo has not behaved otherwise. As a legal luminary, acting President Osinbajo knows the implication of wilful disobedience to court orders by Buhari’s administration, especially on several bails granted to some personalities who are still being detained illegally, he nevertheless refused to act or intervene professionally on the legal dilemmas probably to prove his absolute loyalty to the administration. In tandem with the style and language of his boss, Pastor Osinbajo has consistently re-echoed the message of the administration on war on terror and the aggressive rhetoric on the anti-corruption campaigns.

As a loyal public officer, Osinbajo has embarked on local tours and hosted several meetings towards addressing seeming economic and socio-political challenges. The deliberate efforts, in the absence of the president, have so far strengthened local currency, the Naira, boosted oil production and stabilise the polity. In most occasions, he insists that he is a representative of the president. For instance, when he travelled to the heart of Niger Delta to appeal against militancy, Osinbajo said he was there as an emissary of Buhari to offer “a new vision” for the oil-producing region.

There is all certainty that Professor Osinbajo would have sought the consent of his boss and/or members of the Federal Executive Council in taking some of the far-reaching decisions which are being commended. We should therefore encourage the administration to be focused without creating a division between Buhari and Osinbajo while making comparison.

There is always the fear that political sycophants may feast on such divisive and distractive debates to create avoidable complications which almost consumed two previous administrations. The political imbroglio between President Olusegun Obasanjo and Vice President Atiku Abubakar as well as cabal-infused impasse between President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua and Vice President Goodluck Jonathan were triggered by reckless sentiments from supporters

It is always painful any insinuation that questions the loyalty of a subordinate and doubts the strength and competence of the boss. Such a dilemma merely creates feeling of betrayal and instigates a crisis of confidence that can distract and derail a focused administration. In our clime, there is a thin line between sanity and insanity among political fans (fanatics) whose supports are based on ethnic, religious and sectional sentiments.

We should therefore, support the brilliant strides of acting President Osinbajo in sustaining the tempo of progressiveness and pray for the safe return of President Buhari to carry on the task of greater nationhood.

Yushau A. Shuaib
www.yashuaib.com
yashuaib@yahoo.com

The post The Presidency: Osinbajo and Unquestionable Loyalty appeared first on YAShuaib.