The communiqué from the recent Ibadan Summit reflects a familiar rhythm in Nigeria’s political evolution since independence. From the rivalry of the Northern People’s Congress (NPC), Action Group (AG), and National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC) in the First Republic, to the ideological contest between the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) and the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), Nigeria has always been shaped by the tension between dominant power and resisting opposition.
The Ibadan declaration is therefore not new in spirit. It echoes the age-old warning that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” a principle that has guided democratic struggles across generations. The concern about a drift towards a one party state recalls the anxieties of the early 1980s, when political consolidation weakened opposition voices and ultimately eroded democratic stability.
As Obafemi Awolowo once cautioned, “the people’s business must never be monopolized by a few”. A statement that still resonates in today’s climate.
The call for a united opposition front is also deeply rooted in Nigeria’s political experience. The collapse of fragmented opposition alliances in the past often paved the way for dominant party control. Ironically, the emergence of the All Progressives Congress (APC) itself in 2013, was built on exactly such a coalition strategy that unseated the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) after sixteen years in power. As such, the Ibadan consensus reflects an attempt to replicate that political arithmetic, this time from the perspective of the opposition.
It is also important to situate this conversation within the conduct of past leadership. Goodluck Jonathan stands out in this regard. During his tenure, he allowed democratic institutions to function with a notable degree of independence. He did not interfere with the registration of the APC by INEC, despite obvious political implications. Nor did he intrude into the internal affairs and crises of opposition parties. His posture reinforced a fundamental democratic principle that “the strength of democracy lies not in the dominance of one party, but in the freedom of all parties to compete fairly.” His eventual concession of defeat in 2015 further underscored a rare commitment to democratic norms, setting a benchmark in Nigeria’s political history.
At the same time, the urgency expressed in the communiqué raises a more contentious political assertion. The argument that any political party that refuses to join this coalition before the 2027 presidential election is indirectly working for the APC, reflects the high stakes of Nigeria’s winner takes all political system. While this position may serve as a rallying call for unity, it also risks oversimplifying the complexity of democratic pluralism. As political history shows, opposition strength is not only built on coalition, but also on credibility, ideology, and public trust. In the words often attributed to democratic thought, “you cannot build a united front by coercion. Unity must be negotiated, not imposed.”
However, beyond politics and power, there is a deeper moral reminder that should guide all actors in the Nigerian political space. Leadership is transient, but legacy is enduring. Let it be clearly stated that what ultimately matters is not the wealth acquired in office, but the name and reputation that will be left behind for future generations. As Nnamdi Azikiwe implied in his philosophy of public service, true greatness lies in service, integrity, and the positive imprint one leaves on society. A good name, built on honour and accountability, will always outlive material accumulation.
The criticism of electoral institutions and the demand for reforms further underscore a recurring theme in Nigeria’s democracy: trust deficit. From the controversies of the 1964 Nigerian general election to more recent disputes, the credibility of electoral management bodies has remained central to political legitimacy. As Nelson Mandela wisely stated, “a nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones”. A reminder that electoral justice is fundamental to national cohesion.
Ultimately, the Ibadan consensus is both a protest and a proposition. It reflects the enduring struggle between power and accountability in Nigeria’s political space. Yet, beyond declarations and communiqués, the real test lies in discipline, unity, and credibility. As often said in political philosophy, “power is not only about winning elections, it is about sustaining trust.”
Nigeria’s democratic journey has shown that no party holds power forever, and no opposition remains irrelevant indefinitely. The electorate remains the final arbiter, and history suggests that when the people are truly mobilized, political equations can change with remarkable speed.
However beyond politics and power, there is a deeper moral reminder that should guide all actors in the Nigerian political space. Leadership is transient, but legacy is enduring. Let it be clearly stated that what ultimately matters is not the wealth acquired in office, but the name and reputation that will be left behind for future generations. As Nnamdi Azikiwe implied in his philosophy of public service, true greatness lies in service, integrity, and the positive imprint one leaves on society. A good name built on honour and accountability, will always outlive material accumulation.
I salute and commend those who brought on this idea, and pray that trust, sacrifice and mutual respect for one another, would be uppermost in their minds as they drive this process so that history, in the end, will be kind to them.
Senator Ehigie Uzamere
