Northern Nigeria and a likely APC government in 2027: Negotiation or surrender? (I)

“A people can never rise from low estate as long as they are engrossed in the painful struggle for daily bread”, William Winwood Reade   The evolution of politics in Nigeria has now reached a critical juncture where the question of Northern Nigeria’s interests and priorities can no longer be deferred or treated as an […]

“A people can never rise from low estate as long as they are engrossed in the painful struggle for daily bread”, William Winwood Reade

 

The evolution of politics in Nigeria has now reached a critical juncture where the question of Northern Nigeria’s interests and priorities can no longer be deferred or treated as an inconvenient distraction. To refuse to raise, interrogate, and define these interests and priorities within the broader framework of national governance is to invite forfeiture and, indeed, a quiet but consequential retreat and surrender of relevance. Northern Nigeria today stands unmistakably at a crossroads. As the prospect of another term for the All Progressives Congress (APC) gathers momentum ahead of the 2027 general elections, the region must confront a defining question: will it enter the political arena as a coherent voting and negotiating bloc, conscious of its history, interests, and destiny, or will it drift once more into passive acquiescence, mistaking access for influence and proximity for power?

There is a growing perception across the North that recent policy choices, taken cumulatively, have had the effect, whether intended or not, of weakening the region’s economic base, political leverage, and institutional capacity. Such a perception cannot be casually dismissed as mere sentiment or as a misreading of national dynamics. Governance must ultimately be judged not by the intentions proclaimed, but by the outcomes delivered. And if outcomes suggest a gradual erosion of relative standing within the federation, then it becomes imperative to interrogate both the process and its implications.

What confronts the North today as a region, therefore, is not necessarily a single act of marginalisation, but rather a sequence of incremental developments whose aggregate impact may prove profoundly consequential. It is precisely this slow, almost imperceptible drift that makes the situation more urgent and more dangerous. For a region of such demographic weight, abundant natural resources and historical significance to slide into diminished relevance through inattention, fragmentation, or misplaced loyalty would constitute a failure not only of politics, but of historical responsibility as well.

Political engagement must, in consequence, be recalibrated. It must be guided by clarity of purpose, disciplined coordination, and a sober assessment of both costs and benefits. Every political appointment and every elective position must be weighed not as an end in itself, but as a means to advancing clearly defined regional and national objectives. Representation must cease to be ceremonial or personal and become strategic and collective. The era of symbolic inclusion without substantive influence must give way to a more results-oriented approach to politics and governance.

The true measure of Northern participation in any administration, present or future, will not lie in the sheer number of positions occupied, but in the quality, competence, and strategic orientation of those who occupy them. It is within institutions such as the National Assembly and the Federal Executive Council that the architecture of policy is constructed, resources allocated, and national priorities determined. If the North is to safeguard its interests and contribute meaningfully towards Nigeria’s democratic evolution, it must ensure that its representatives in these and other critical organs of state possess not only legitimacy, but also intellectual depth, administrative competence, and moral authority.

At this critical moment of uncertainty and rapidly changing scenarios, the North cannot simply afford the mistake of sending its third or even second best representatives to the federal government at the centre. For, in the final analysis, no region is protected by numbers alone. It is protected by the effectiveness of its representation. And effectiveness is not accidental; it is the product of vision, coordination, experience, and the courage to negotiate not from mere grievance, but from strategic clarity. This is not simply a matter of partisan alignment. It is a question of political agency and remaining relevant.

Northern Nigeria, despite its demographic strength, has in recent years, exhibited a troubling pattern of political underperformance, ceding ground in critical domains of governance, economic transformation, and agenda-setting. This paradox of numerical strength without commensurate influence, must now be confronted with candour and purpose. The APC, since its ascent to power in 2015, has benefited enormously from Northern electoral support and goodwill. The coalition that propelled it into office was anchored significantly on the overwhelming votes from the North Central, North West and North East.

This support has been consistent, resilient, and, in many respects, unconditional. Yet the dividends of such loyalty remain ambiguous and even questionable. This is not to suggest exclusion in a simplistic sense. Northern politicians have occupied, and continue to occupy, significant positions within the federal structure, ranging from the Vice-Presidency to key ministerial portfolios and leadership roles in the legislature. However, the central question persists: have these positions translated into tangible progress for the region? Has representation yielded transformation?

The evidence, unfortunately, is not reassuring. Across large expanses of Northern Nigeria, insecurity, poverty, educational deficits, and infrastructural decay remain stubborn realities. The North West continues to grapple with banditry and rural violence; the North East struggles to recover fully from the devastations of insurgency; and the North Central remains entangled in cycles of communal conflict and displacement. These are not isolated disturbances; they are systemic challenges that threaten the very fabric of Northern society.

Economically, the region has struggled to reposition itself within an increasingly competitive national and global environment. Agriculture, though primitive but rich in potential, still remains constrained by insecurity and structural inefficiencies. Industrialisation is limited, and youth unemployment continues to rise, creating conditions for instability and social unrest. The promise of inclusive growth has remained largely unrealised, while sub-national governance structures often perform below expectations. In this context, the question of a renewed APC mandate must not be treated as a foregone conclusion. Rather, it must be approached as an opportunity for renegotiation.

Politics, in its essence, is about interests that are defined, articulated, and pursued with discipline. It is not about sentiment, nor about inherited loyalties or personal ties. If there is to be another term for APC, it must be anchored on a clearly articulated compact between the party and the Northern region. Such a compact must be concrete, measurable, and enforceable. It must address, with urgency, the core challenges confronting the region mainly security, education, infrastructure, and economic revitalisation in all its aspects.

Security, in particular, must be reconceptualised not merely as a matter of military deployment, but as a comprehensive framework that integrates intelligence, governance, economic opportunity, employment and community engagement. Education must be treated as an emergency, requiring both expansion and reform. Infrastructure must be developed not as isolated projects, but as part of a coherent strategy for economic transformation. Equally critical is the question of political voice. The North must move beyond fragmentation and reactive politics towards a more coordinated and principled engagement.

Individual political actors negotiating in isolation, driven by personal ambition, must give way to a collective approach rooted in shared priorities. This is not sectionalism but strategic participation. Nigeria’s diversity demands balance, but balance is only achievable when all regions engage with clarity and confidence. A disorganised North does not strengthen national unity but weakens it by creating structural imbalances. History offers lessons in this regard. Regions that have advanced their interests have done so deliberately through internal consensus, clear articulation of demands, and negotiation from positions of advantage and strength.

The North must learn from these examples. There is also a moral imperative to the issue. Leadership must be judged not by positions occupied, but by outcomes delivered. The widening gap between political rhetoric and the reality of things happening in the North can no longer be ignored. If the region approaches the 2027 elections without a coherent strategy, it will enter into arrangements that offer the illusion of inclusion without the substance of influence. In effect, the North will surrender and become a vast and deplorable wasteland that is useful only as a reservoir of aimless voters.