Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke has reignited a familiar but uncomfortable debate in Nigerian politics: should presidential support be earned through performance, or inherited through ethnicity?
Fresh off his re-election victory, Adeleke used a recent interview with Channels Television to reaffirm his backing for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s 2027 re-election bid. It’s the reason he gave that has drawn scrutiny.
The Statement That Sparked the Debate
Adeleke told Channels Television that his support for Tinubu isn’t rooted in any political agreement or party arrangement between the two men. Instead, he pointed to something more elemental: Tinubu is a Yoruba man from the South-West, and his home region should stand behind his administration. Adeleke was explicit that no formal understanding exists between him and the President regarding 2027. his endorsement is about regional solidarity, not political calculation.
Competence or Regional Solidarity?
The comment lands awkwardly alongside Adeleke’s own record. In an earlier Channels Television appearance, he urged Osun voters to judge leaders by their track record, emphasizing performance and governance outcomes rather than simply defaulting to party loyalty.
That earlier position raises an obvious question: if performance should determine who governs a state, why shouldn’t the same standard apply to those who governs the country?
Critics have seized on what they see as an inconsistency. The pointed question now making the rounds is this: If President Tinubu were not a Yoruba man from the South-West, would Governor Adeleke still support his bid for a second term?
Nothing New, But Poorly Timed
To be clear, regional and ethnic loyalty are not new forces in Nigerian politics. They have shaped voting patterns, political alliances, and presidential contests for decades. What makes Adeleke’s comments notable, however, is the apparent contrast: a governor invoking identity-based reasoning almost in the same breath as previously championing accountability, performance, and results.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a region taking pride in one of its own reaching national office. Representation matters, and that instinct is understandable. The concern arises when regional pride becomes the primary justification for political support, rather than one factor considered alongside competence, performance, character, and the broader interests of the country.
A National Office, Not a Regional One
Nigeria is a federation of more than 200 million people spanning the South-West, South-East, South-South, North-Central, North-East and North-West. The presidency governs all of them. A president’s policies on the economy, security, education and infrastructure affect citizens far beyond his home region, which is why the case for or against a second term arguably needs to rest on more than geography.
The broader concern is one of political culture: if a Yoruba president is supported simply because he is Yoruba, an Igbo candidate is supported simply because he is Igbo, and a Northern candidate is supported simply because he is Northern, then elections stop functioning as a referendum on competence and instead become a census of ethnic turnout.
What Should Actually Decide 2027?
Adeleke’s remarks, intentionally or not, have opened a larger conversation Nigerians will need to have as 2027 approaches:
- Should political support be driven by ethnicity?
- By region?
- By party loyalty?
- Or by a candidate’s record, competence, character, policies and demonstrated ability to deliver?
Adeleke is entitled to support whichever candidate he chooses — that’s not in dispute. What deserves scrutiny is the reasoning, especially when a public official who once championed performance-based evaluation appears to pivot toward identity-based justification when it’s politically convenient.
The Real Question for 2027
Nigeria will not build a genuinely national political culture if presidential elections continue to be viewed through the lens of ethnic ownership. A candidate’s regional or ethnic identity may shape public sentiment, but it should never substitute for a critical evaluation of what that candidate has actually done and what they can still do for the country.
As the 2027 election approaches, the question voters and commentators should be asking is not, “Is he one of us?”
It is, “Is he capable of leading all of us?”