As the 2027 general election draws closer, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu must confront an inescapable reality: an incumbent seeking another term cannot reasonably expect citizens to endorse his stewardship without directly presenting his case across the federation.
His intention to forgo visiting every state alongside his campaign apparatus has sparked sharp controversy. Opposition figures, civil society advocates, and everyday citizens view it as an evasion of duty, while his defenders insist statecraft must take precedence over campaign theatrics. The presidency maintains that national emergencies require his presence at his desk, leaving the All Progressives Congress (APC) Campaign Council to champion his message across the country.
There is legitimate weight to the principle that governance must not collapse during campaign season. Security threats endure, public services must function, and executive duties remain binding. Yet administrative duty cannot become an alibi against democratic reckoning. Proxies and campaign surrogates are simply incapable of answering for policies formulated in the Oval Office.
Tinubu is not pursuing an honorary extension; he is soliciting another four years of sovereign authority. That request demands far more than orchestrated rallies and partisan fanfare. It requires direct answers. What became of the pledges made during the 2023 cycle? How should voters evaluate the fallout from the swift termination of fuel subsidies and currency liberalisation? Where are the measurable improvements in electricity supply, purchasing power, domestic security, and job creation? These inquiries cannot be delegated to regional governors or party spokespeople.
For millions of citizens—from vendors watching their capital disappear to families struggling against runaway food inflation—the coming ballot is not an academic debate. It is a referendum on survival. Consequently, any perceived withdrawal from public engagement touches a raw nerve. It fuels whispers regarding physical endurance and an unwillingness to confront widespread public anger. While such theories remain unverified, political vacuums invite suspicion. If legitimate health concerns or acute national crises curtail the President’s itinerary, honest communication is imperative. Strategic silence will not serve him well.
Furthermore, citing the burdens of governance as a shield against campaign scrutiny creates an obvious expectation: the public should see concrete dividends from that focused attention. If the President spends less time on the podium to concentrate on running the country, that commitment must translate into stabilised markets, dependable infrastructure, and safer communities. A leader can both manage state affairs and answer directly to the electorate; the two responsibilities are not mutually exclusive.
Meanwhile, opposition figures like Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi are justified in calling out this detachment, but rhetoric alone does not constitute an alternative. Challengers must do more than harness public frustration. They owe Nigerians rigorous, fully costed economic blueprints and viable security strategies backed by verified data. Democracy suffers just as profoundly from an uninspired opposition relying on noise as it does from an incumbent avoiding scrutiny.
Equally troubling is the recurring tendency to blur state authority with partisan operations, demonstrated by convening party campaign machinery within the Presidential Villa. Public institutions belong to the nation, not to the ruling party. Maintaining a strict boundary between state functions and partisan campaigning is vital for preserving democratic trust.
No responsible observer demands that the President undertake a physically damaging, 36-state tour merely to satisfy campaign rituals. Practical scheduling, security evaluations, and health considerations are entirely valid. But scaling back physical stops must not equate to dodging public inquiry. Tinubu can conduct rigorous, unscripted town halls, take open questions from independent journalists, and present verifiable data on his tenure. The electorate may accept a revised travel schedule, but it will never accept delegation in place of accountability.
