Alex Ter Adum, Ph.D

In moments of political uncertainty, serious movements do not gamble on novelty; they consolidate around capacity. Nations facing economic strain, institutional fragility, and coalition fragmentation do not search for excitement — they search for tested depth. The debate within the opposition space, therefore, is not about sentiment, generational symbolism, or momentary enthusiasm. It is about national scale, proven resilience, institutional memory, and electoral arithmetic. By those metrics, one figure continues to tower above the field.

H.E. Atiku Abubakar remains the opposition’s strongest national figure, distinguished by unmatched name recognition, a genuinely nationwide political machinery, and deep-rooted cross-country networks. In Nigerian politics, national leadership is not earned through momentary buzz, social media excitement, or regional dominance. It is forged through coalition-building across diverse constituencies, tested experience, strategic restraint, and repeated validation on a truly national stage. By these enduring standards, Atiku Abubakar stands out as the opposition’s most consistent, most competitive, and most nationally justified leader.

Twice within four years, Atiku secured the presidential ticket of the People’s Democratic Party under intensely competitive circumstances. In 2019, he emerged from a bruising primary election in Port Harcourt with 1,532 of 3,274 votes, defeating a field populated by sitting governors and entrenched power blocs. In 2023, amid generational agitation and shifting political alignments, he again prevailed in Abuja with 371 of 763 votes. Winning a major party’s presidential primary once is formidable; winning it twice, across distinct political climates, is evidence of sustained relevance, strategic depth, and enduring confidence within party structures.

Beyond party primaries, Atiku has consistently demonstrated broad national acceptance at the general election level. In 2019, he challenged a sitting president and secured over twelve million votes nationwide. In 2023, despite the full weight of incumbency and state apparatus, he again finished second with approximately seven million votes, recording pluralities across more than twenty-one states. These outcomes were not accidents of party structure; they reflected a political footprint that cuts across regions, faiths, and social divides. They underscore a national presence that few opposition figures can credibly claim.

Atiku’s credibility is further reinforced by executive experience and political maturity. As Vice President of Nigeria from 1999 to 2007, he was far from ceremonial. He played a central role in economic reform, privatisation, fiscal restructuring, and institutional rebuilding during Nigeria’s democratic re-emergence. Few figures in today’s opposition can speak with comparable authority about federal executive coordination, intergovernmental relations, and macroeconomic management. He understands the machinery of governance not as theory, but as lived responsibility.

Critics frequently cite age as a reason for Atiku to step aside. At 79, they argue, the demands of the presidency may be excessive. Yet such claims dissolve under scrutiny. In democratic leadership, age is not the determinant; capacity is. By all observable measures, Atiku has demonstrated intellectual clarity, physical stamina, policy fluency, and sustained engagement. His campaign schedules, public interactions, and policy articulations reveal neither lethargy nor decline.

Global precedents further weaken the age argument. Leaders well into their late seventies continue to contest and occupy executive office without credible evidence of incapacity. In Atiku’s case, there is no medically grounded or empirically observable basis for calls demanding withdrawal on account of age. Leadership is ultimately judged by judgment, decisiveness, composure, and clarity of purpose — qualities he continues to exhibit.

Equally significant is Atiku’s consistent commitment to party unity and democratic discipline, an increasingly scarce virtue in contemporary politics. In 1992, he stepped down from the SDP presidential race to support Chief M.K.O. Abiola in the interest of cohesion and national stability. In 2011, after losing the PDP presidential primary, he rallied behind President Goodluck Jonathan. In 2015, following his loss in the APC primaries, he supported Muhammadu Buhari despite personal cost.

This record contrasts sharply with the pattern of political actors who, upon losing primaries, resort to grievance, fragmentation, or anti-party manoeuvres. Atiku’s history reflects a statesman who recognises that democracy is sustained not by perpetual ambition alone, but by respect for process, institutions, and collective purpose.

It must also be stated plainly that winning a PDP presidential primary is often more complex than many state-level elections. Atiku has repeatedly confronted governors, incumbents, and entrenched internal coalitions — and prevailed. These are contests fought on a national chessboard, not local checkers.

State victories and regional popularity may generate headlines, but they do not automatically translate into nationwide acceptability. Until alternative contenders demonstrate the capacity to secure a major party’s ticket, confront incumbency at scale, and attract millions of votes across Nigeria, comparisons with Atiku Abubakar remain premature.

Atiku is not defined by fleeting enthusiasm or parochial triumphs. He is measured by executive experience, party loyalty, national reach, resilience under pressure, and mental acuity. By these metrics, he remains the opposition’s most tested, most stabilising, and most formidable standard-bearer — and, for any coalition seeking serious national competitiveness, the strongest foot forward.

The question before the opposition, therefore, is not who excites the moment, but who can consolidate the nation. It is not who trends briefly, but who endures structurally. It is not who dominates a region, but who commands a federation. When history evaluates turning points, it does not reward hesitation; it rewards clarity. And in the calculus of national viability, tested strength remains superior to experimental uncertainty.

Alex Ter Adum, Ph.D
Deputy Director-General
The Narrative Force