How 5 institutions were named after Tinubu in 11 months

A wave of criticism has trailed the recent naming of a newly constructed army barracks in Asokoro, Abuja, after President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, bringing the number of institutions named after him to five since he assumed office in May 2023. The Bola Ahmed Tinubu Barracks, inaugurated on January 23, 2025, comes shortly after the federal […]

A wave of criticism has trailed the recent naming of a newly constructed army barracks in Asokoro, Abuja, after President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, bringing the number of institutions named after him to five since he assumed office in May 2023.

The Bola Ahmed Tinubu Barracks, inaugurated on January 23, 2025, comes shortly after the federal government approved the establishment of Bola Ahmed Tinubu Polytechnic, Gwarinpa, also in Abuja, to promote technological, vocational and entrepreneurial education.

The trend, according to findings, began 11 months ago when the Niger State Government in March 2024 renamed the Abubakar Imam International Airport in Minna as Bola Ahmed Tinubu International Airport, sparking outrage, particularly among residents of Rafi Local Government Area, the home of the late Abubakar Imam Kagara. The renaming was controversial as the airport had only been named after Abubakar Imam in June 2023 in recognition of his contributions to northern Nigeria’s literary, political and educational landscape.

Similarly, in May 2024, the National Assembly Library and Resource Centre was inaugurated and named the Bola Tinubu Building, while in December 2024, the Nigeria Immigration Service named its state-of-the-art technology complex after President Tinubu, citing his commitment to innovation.

• PETROAN‘s welcome intervention: Alert on OICs economic sabotage
• Is dialogue answer to banditry and kidnappings in the North West?

Beyond these five institutions, there is also a proposed Bola Ahmed Tinubu Federal University of Nigerian Languages in Aba, Abia State. A bill for its establishment was introduced in the House of Representatives in October 2024, aimed at advancing higher education in Nigerian languages and cultures.

Weekend Trust reports that despite not breaching any known law, the trend of naming institutions after a sitting president has raised moral and ethical concerns. The controversy around these renaming exercises continues to intensify, particularly due to the perception that they are politically motivated.

 

Historical context of military barracks naming

Historically, the naming of military barracks has followed a pattern of honouring those who contributed significantly to the country, particularly in the context of wartime heroes or military leaders, or to recognise some significant historical locations, mostly relating to military events.

In an article titled Barracks: The History Behind Those Names, historian, Nowa Omoigui recalled how, in September 2002, the then Minister of Defence, Lt. Gen. TY Danjuma (retd) set up a Military Installation Naming Committee to assess the propriety of naming military installations after individuals. The committee comprised Brig-Gen Mobolaji Johnson (retd); Lt-Gen M. I. Wushishi (retd), General D. Y. Bali (retd), Major-General M. C. Ali (ertd) and Brig-Gen Pius Obi (retd), with Brig-Gen A. N. Bamali as the secretary,

Omoigui recalled that among other things, the committee was tasked: “To determine the propriety or otherwise of naming military installations after individuals; to examine ways of reviving the names inherited from colonial era that have now been abandoned; to recommend appropriate additional names arising from the Nigerian Civil War, ECOMOG operations in Liberia and Sierra Leone and any other peacekeeping operation in which Nigerian troops suffered casualties.”

At the time, barracks were traditionally named after specific battles or locations in which Nigerian troops had been involved, particularly during the Nigerian Civil War and the peacekeeping operations in Liberia and Sierra Leone. For example, Arakan Barracks and Myohaung Barracks were named after campaigns during the World War II era, and Tamandu Barracks was named after a notable battle in the northern region.

Specifically, the minister was quoted as saying: “At no time was any barracks named after individuals, whether dead or alive. The first departure from this practice was recorded when the military cantonment in Kaduna was named after Alhaji Muhammadu Ribadu, the first Minister of Defence.”

The naming conventions for military barracks was updated after the review committee’s work, which led to several barracks being renamed after prominent Nigerian military figures, including Yakubu Gowon, Sani Abacha, Aguiyi Ironsi, Ibrahim Babangida, and Olusegun Obasanjo. The change was seen as an effort to honour and solidify the legacy of the country’s military leadership and to further instill a sense of patriotism.

But during the administration of President Umar Musa Yar’adua, the policy was partly reversed. It was ordered that military barracks, formations and institutions previously named after individuals — particularly former heads of state and military officers —should revert to their original names or be renamed in line with military traditions. 

Accordingly, the Obasanjo Barracks in Abuja was renamed Mambilla Barracks; Mohammed Buhari Barracks reverted to its former name, Lungi Barracks; and Ibrahim Babangida Barracks changed back to Maimalari Barracks in Maiduguri.

The decision was seen as an effort to depersonalise national military assets and restore professionalism in the armed forces.

 

A moral issue, not legal

While it is not uncommon for governments around the world to name institutions after past leaders or significant figures, critics have raised concerns about the practice of naming critical institutions after sitting presidents. In particular, the growing trend of naming various public facilities after President Tinubu has been met with widespread disapproval. Many argue that this practice reflects a troubling pattern of self-promotion and is not in line with democratic principles.

Seun Onigbinde, the co-founder of BudgIT, a civil society organization dedicated to promoting transparency and accountability in Nigeria, took to X (formerly Twitter) to express his concerns. 

He wrote: “In less than a year, four public institutions have been named after President Bola Tinubu. This abuse of norms is rooted in the sycophantic culture that has grown in recent times. The president should put a stop to this as he is signaling a culture that is highly unacceptable.”

Onigbinde’s statement summed the criticism that this renaming trend represents a form of sycophantic excess, where institutions are manipulated for the benefit of those in power, rather than being named in recognition of true merit or service to the country. He contended that this practice diminished the significance of public institutions by associating them too closely with the personal image of the sitting president.

In support of Onigbinde’s criticism, another observer commented: “Nothing to worry about, once power changes hands, it will be returned to the initial name it was bearing,” even as another posited that “institutions and public infrastructures will begin to have name changes every 4/8 years with the cost burden on public purse.”

Another commentator, Okediran Adeyemi submitted that, “This act promotes sycophancy and undermines meritocracy. Such honours should be reserved for leaders’ post-tenure whose legacy of service or sacrifice is undeniable.”

 

Civil society groups respond

The practice has also been condemned by several prominent civil society groups who argue that it undermines democratic values and fosters an unhealthy culture of personality worship. 

Dr Moses Paul, the convener of the Free Nigeria Movement, a coalition of activist groups, expressed his dismay at the direction the administration is taking. He stated that naming significant public institutions after a sitting president compromised national integrity and undermines the democratic process.

He described the renaming of a military barracks in Asokoro after Tinubu as particularly egregious. 

“Military barracks are not mere structures; they are sanctuaries of sacrifice, discipline, and service to the nation. Naming one after a sitting president while countless soldiers have paid the ultimate price for our security dishonours their memory,” he said.

Paul argued that globally, public infrastructures are named after individuals whose contributions have stood the test of time. “Nigeria’s military has suffered immense losses in the fight against insurgency. Naming barracks after fallen soldiers would be a far more fitting tribute,” he said.

He warned that such actions erode public trust in governance, signalling a lack of accountability and a tendency toward self-glorification.

“We call on the federal government to review these decisions. Nigeria deserves a leadership that respects its history, honours its heroes and prioritises its people over self-aggrandisement. True leadership is measured not by names on buildings but by lasting impact on citizens’ lives,” he said.

Comrade Ibrahim Zikirullahi, the executive director of the Resource Centre for Human Rights and Civic Education (CHRICED), also condemned the renaming of institutions, arguing that such actions are part of a broader strategy to consolidate political power rather than honouring individuals who have made lasting contributions to society.

“Naming government institutions after public figures is not alien to Nigeria, but the manner in which the current administration is naming almost every government institution after President Tinubu is disturbing. The standard practice is for successors to honour a leader after they leave office. Naming institutions after a sitting president not only undermines historical continuity but risks politicising public resources,” he said.

Comrade Zikirullahi’s remarks stressed the risk of undermining democratic norms by introducing a cult of personality, where every administration seeks to secure its place in history at the expense of public trust and transparency.

Efforts to get the reaction of the Presidency on the matter were unsuccessful as none of the spokesmen could be reached for comment.

The Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communication, Sunday Dare and Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga did not respond to calls put across to them.

Also the Special Adviser to the President on Policy Communications, Daniel Bwala, could not be reached on phone. Messages sent to their mobile phones was yet to be replied as at the time of filing this report.

 

N’Assembly urged to make it legal issue

The Executive Director of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC) and Head of Transparency International Nigeria (TI-Nigeria), Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, was equally critical of the trend, warning that the practice sets a dangerous precedent that could have far-reaching consequences for the country’s political culture. He cautioned that such actions might lead to the instrumentalisation of public institutions for partisan purposes, which undermines the democratic ethos of national development.

“The concentration of national symbols and institutions around a sitting president reflects an attempt to monopolise public spaces and institutional memory for personal glorification. This is not the kind of democratic politics we should encourage,” Rafsanjani said.

He went on to draw comparisons with other countries, highlighting the political implications of similar actions by other leaders around the world. He noted the cases of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Yoweri Museveni in Uganda and Vladimir Putin in Russia, where the naming of institutions after sitting leaders was part of a broader strategy of consolidating personal power and entrenching their legacies. In all of these cases, he argued it led to long-term political instability and a weakening of democratic institutions.

He noted that leaders world over who truly seek to build their legacies often do so by creating lasting change that benefits the entire country, not by altering public infrastructure for the sole purpose of reinforcing their personal image.

Rafsanjani urged the National Assembly to pass a legislation prohibiting the renaming of public institutions after sitting officials. He suggested that any renaming of public assets should only be carried out after broad consultations and with the input of the civil society to ensure that it reflects the interests of the people rather than the preferences of those in power.

“Any decision to rename public institutions should involve broad consultations with stakeholders, including civil society and the public,” he said.

He stressed that this process is crucial in ensuring that such renaming exercises do not become tools for political manipulation but rather serve to honour leaders whose actions have had a lasting, positive impact on the country.

 

Lagos and Tinubu’s political influence

Beyond the federal level, Lagos State, where Tinubu served as governor from 1999 to 2007, has been another focal point for his legacy-building efforts. Tinubu, often regarded as a political godfather in Lagos, enjoys widespread loyalty among the state’s political elite, which has resulted in numerous institutions named in his honour. 

Some of these facilities are the Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu Ultra Modern Market, Ijaiye Ojokoro; Bola Tinubu Memorial Hall, Ifako-Ijaiye; Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu Block at Ojokoro LCDA; Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu Ultra Modern Market, Ijaiye Ojokoro, Lagos; Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu Legislative Building, Kosofe, Lagos; Bola Tinubu Memorial Hall inside Ifakojaiye LCDA, and Asiwaju Bola Tinubu Civic Centre, Ifako Ijaiye LCDA.

Others are Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu Health Centre, Aboru, Oke Odo; Bola Ahmed Tinubu Estate, Abule Egba;  Ahmed Tinubu Modern Market, Agbara;  Bola Tinubu Staff Quarters, Alausa Secretariat Bus Stop; Bola Tinubu Model Market Idimu; Bola Ahmed Tinubu Train Station.

Many argue that these re-naming serve to reinforce his dominance within the local political landscape

However, some critics have acknowledged that while Tinubu’s influence in Lagos is significant, these renaming might also be a signal of the growing trend of consolidating political power through symbolic gestures.

Speaking anonymously, a Lagos-based chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC) defended the naming of institutions in Tinubu’s honour, arguing that his contributions to the state and the country in general warrant such recognitions.

“He touched lives across Nigeria. He raised people, made them senators, House of Representatives members and more,” he said.

Yet, even in Lagos, the timing of the renaming has sparked debate, with some observing that it may be premature to place the names of living leaders on public institutions. 

The chieftain of the ruling party acknowledged that while Tinubu’s legacy should eventually be honoured, the renaming of facilities during his presidency might be seen by some as politically motivated.

Prof Sylvester Odion, a Lagos-based political scientist, also criticised the renaming of institutions while a leader is still in power, asserting that it is inappropriate and undermines the democratic values that should guide such decisions. He also echoed the sentiments that leaders should be celebrated for their service only after they leave office, when their legacies can be more accurately assessed.

“Celebrating oneself while in power is improper. It is better for the society to acknowledge you after office based on merit,” he said.

Additional reports by Abbas Jimoh and Baba Martins, Abuja & Abdullateef Aliyu, Lagos