Onanuga is right: President Tinubu is a democrat, but…
Last Thursday, Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, accused some opposition figures, led by the ADC and NNPP, of making “spurious allegations against President Bola Tinubu” and his government. He reminds us that President Tinubu is a democrat. Let us begin by agreeing with him. Yes, he is a democrat. […]
Last Thursday, Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, accused some opposition figures, led by the ADC and NNPP, of making “spurious allegations against President Bola Tinubu” and his government. He reminds us that President Tinubu is a democrat. Let us begin by agreeing with him. Yes, he is a democrat. He once stood in opposition. He helped build coalitions. He campaigned fiercely. He defeated an incumbent ruling party in 2015. Onanuga is correct on that score.
But that is not the argument Nigerians are having. The issue is not whether Tinubu was a democrat. The issue is whether democracy survives when power becomes too comfortable within one group of elites, in one corner, in one political bloc.
According to Onanuga, the opposition is “crying foul” over the 2026 Electoral Act and is guilty of “lamentation and unwarranted outrage.” Perhaps. But democracies are not judged by how they treat praise; they are judged by how they treat suspicion. The opposition alleges selective justice and expresses suspicion about federal government intentions. For instance, Nasir El-Rufai publicly demanded that the NSA clarify reports that thallium sulphate—nicknamed “the poisoner’s poison”—was imported by the Office of the NSA. As a democrat, the President could have ordered a simple statement to clarify the issue.
A democrat encourages citizen participation, fair play, liberty, and equality. When one party controls the presidency, the National Assembly, and an overwhelming majority of governors, legitimate concerns about consolidation arise. It is not paranoia to ask questions; it is civic duty. The Electoral Act debate may be technical, but when the referee writes the rulebook and also fields the strongest team, even small adjustments begin to look strategic. Power has a way of making even reasonable reforms appear tactical.
There is another problem Onanuga is missing. He insists that Nigeria is not becoming a one-party state because multiple parties are registered. Technically correct. But he should tell Nigerians how many parties are registered in countries widely regarded as dominant-party states, such as Russia and Uganda. Officially, 27 political parties are registered in the Russian Federation. Yet, since August 1999, Vladimir Putin has remained in power following the dismissal of Sergei Stepashin’s cabinet. In Uganda, the Electoral Commission legally recognised 27 political parties in the 2026 general elections. Yet President Yoweri Museveni’s coalition has consolidated dominance over parliament and security institutions. In 2005, presidential term limits were removed. In 2017, age limits were scrapped. Each constitutional change was enabled by legislative dominance.
An important lesson emerges: when one coalition controls both the executive and the legislature, constitutional amendments can become tools of incumbency rather than instruments of national consensus. Democracy is not measured by how many logos appear on a ballot; it is measured by how many centres of resistance still function effectively. When governors defect in batches, legislative majorities expand, opposition structures weaken, and party primaries become nationally standardised under the watch of a dominant centre, one does not need to declare a one-party state. One simply grows into one; gradually, respectably, democratically.
As a student of Islamic history, I see a sobering parallel in the lesson of Karbala. Under Yazid I (646–683), authority was consolidated and dissent narrowed. Loyalty was expected as a matter of order. Stability was the argument; unity was the slogan. But when Husayn ibn Ali refused to pledge allegiance on principle, the space for disagreement had already shrunk. The result was the tragedy of Karbala. It was an event that left a permanent moral scar on Islamic civilization. The lesson is not theological; it is political. I have two takeaways from this: when authority leaves little room for principled dissent, conflict ceases to be reconciliatory and becomes catastrophic. Suppressing dissent does not eliminate disagreement; it merely postpones its explosion.
Contrast this with the leadership model of Umar ibn al-Khattab (584–644). He famously invited corrections from ordinary citizens. When challenged publicly, he did not employ a medieval ‘Onanuga’ to accuse critics of disinformation; he explained himself. Early Islamic governance emphasised consultation (shūrā) and moral restraint. Later eras demonstrated what happens when authority narrows around dynastic courts and loyal elites. The difference was not strength; it was accountability. This is what I call “the Umar Standard,” and it is what Onanuga and his ilk seem to be missing.
In the press statement, Onanuga defends Form EC8A as a backup for network failures. That may be administratively logical, but political optics matter. When the same administration benefits from defections, enjoys legislative dominance, and oversees reforms that opposition parties distrust, reassurance cannot come through press statements alone. It must come through visible restraint. The Electoral Act debate is a symptom of distrust. If electronic transmission gives ironclad guarantee for free and fair elections; why give room for something else? Yes. There could be transmission failures. Why don’t we provide alternatives and safeguards against such failures. As Benjamin the donkey beautifully put it in the “Animal Farm”: “God gave me a tail to keep off the flies. But I’d rather have had no tail and no flies”.
President Tinubu may sincerely believe he is strengthening Nigeria’s democratic architecture. His supporters may genuinely see reform where critics see manipulation. That is precisely the point. Democracy does not rely on the goodness of leaders; it relies on systems that protect citizens even when leaders are tempted. History: whether Nigeria’s third-term episode under Olusegun Obasanjo or broader continental examples, shows that overwhelming political numbers create opportunities, and opportunities test character.
No one wakes up intending to centralise power excessively. It happens incrementally: a rule adjustment here, a defection there, a super-majority secured, a dissenting voice dismissed as “disorganised,” until one day opposition becomes decorative.
If President Tinubu is indeed the democrat Onanuga describes, then I offer a simple prescription: strengthen independent institutions; encourage competitive opposition; avoid reforms that appear self-serving; demonstrate regional balance transparently; and welcome scrutiny rather than dismiss it. The real danger to democracy is not loud opposition; it is comfortable dominance.
The paradox of power is that the stronger it becomes numerically, the more restrained it must be morally. If President Bola Ahmed Tinubu truly commands overwhelming support, democratic confidence should make him generous toward dissent, not impatient with it. A leader certain of victory does not silence critics; he defeats them at the ballot. When dissent is framed as sabotage, institutional concerns dismissed as tantrums, and political dominance steadily expands across federal structures, history gently clears its throat.
Karbala reminds us that suppressing principled dissent can leave wounds that outlive regimes. Umar reminds us that inviting correction strengthens authority rather than weakens it.
Finally, Onanuga says the opposition is exaggerating. Perhaps. But history teaches that the most dangerous concentration of power is the one that insists there is no danger at all. President Tinubu may be a democrat. The question is whether Nigerian democracy remains strongest when power is dispersed or when it is politely, efficiently, and incrementally consolidated.
That is the bigger problem Onanuga is missing. And it is larger than any press statement.
El-Yakubu is a Professor of Chemical Engineering, Ahmadu Bello University Email: [email protected]