There is a question President Bola Ahmed Tinubu must answer before the 2027 presidential election: if he wants another four years in Aso Rock, why should Nigerians not expect him to stand before them, state by state, and defend his record?
His decision not to accompany his campaign team to every state has ignited a political storm, drawing criticism from opposition leaders, activists and ordinary citizens, while others insist that governance must not grind to a halt because of electioneering. The President argues that Nigeria’s pressing needs demand his attention and that members of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Campaign Council can carry his message to voters nationwide.
That argument is not entirely without merit. A sitting president has constitutional responsibilities that do not disappear during an election campaign. Government must function, security must be addressed, and the business of the nation must continue.
But there is a dangerous flaw in the President’s position: governance is not an escape route from accountability, and a campaign surrogate is no substitute for the candidate whose record is on trial.
Tinubu is not seeking a ceremonial extension of his stay in office. He is asking Nigerians to entrust him with another four years of power. That request demands more than carefully choreographed rallies, rehearsed speeches and party loyalists singing his praises. It demands answers.
What has happened to the promises made in 2023? What tangible relief have millions of struggling households received? How should Nigerians assess the consequences of petrol subsidy removal and naira reforms? What is the administration’s scorecard on electricity, food prices, employment, insecurity and the cost of living?
These are not questions that can be wished away by delegating campaign appearances to governors and party leaders. They are questions that belong to the President.
THE PEOPLE ARE NOT FOOLS
Across the country, the mood is unmistakable: Nigerians want to be heard. From the trader counting the dwindling contents of her purse to the worker whose salary struggles to survive the month, from the farmer threatened by insecurity to the young graduate searching desperately for employment, the public is entitled to demand a reckoning.
For many citizens, the election will not be an abstract contest of political slogans. It will be a verdict on their lived experience.
That is why Tinubu’s proposed absence from some campaign stops has struck such a sensitive nerve. To his critics, it suggests an unwillingness to confront public anger. Some have questioned his physical fitness; others believe he may be reluctant to defend his administration’s performance. These are allegations, not established facts. The President’s decision alone does not prove that he is unwell or afraid of voters.
Nevertheless, he should understand the political consequences of leaving such questions unanswered. In politics, a vacuum rarely remains empty. Suspicion rushes in where explanation is absent.
If the President is physically capable of discharging his duties, he should have no reason to leave Nigerians guessing about his willingness to engage them. If health or other legitimate considerations constrain his campaign schedule, he should communicate his plans clearly. Nigerians deserve honesty, not speculation.
Silence may be convenient, but it is a poor campaign strategy.
GOVERNANCE IS NOT A SHIELD
The argument that the President must remain focused on governance sounds reasonable. Indeed, Nigeria cannot afford a government that abandons its responsibilities whenever politicians hit the campaign trail.
But the same argument raises another question: what exactly is the President doing with the time he saves by skipping campaign stops, and how will Nigerians see the benefits?
If governance is the priority, then the evidence should be visible in improved security, greater economic stability, reliable electricity, better access to essential services and a meaningful reduction in the hardship confronting ordinary families.
The President cannot invoke the demands of governance as a shield against political scrutiny while asking the same citizens to renew his mandate. The two responsibilities are not mutually exclusive. A president can govern and explain his governance. He can attend to national business and still make himself available to voters.
Nor should the APC confuse the ability to organise rallies with the ability to win public confidence. Party machinery can mobilise crowds. Governors can deliver speeches. Spokespersons can defend policy. But none of them can erase the consequences of decisions taken by the President.
The mandate belongs to Tinubu. So does the responsibility to defend it.
THE OPPOSITION MUST DO MORE THAN SHOUT
Opposition figures, including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, have seized on the President’s position to question his commitment to accountability. The Labour Party and the Makinde/Daura Presidential Campaign Organisation have also criticised the plan.
Their central argument—that a president seeking re-election should personally defend his record—is persuasive. But criticism alone is not a credible alternative to leadership.
The opposition must do more than exploit public frustration. It must present workable policies, credible economic proposals, a serious security strategy and a clear plan for restoring public confidence. Nigerians deserve alternatives, not merely louder accusations.
Claims about poverty, economic failure, insecurity and government performance should be supported by verifiable evidence, not inflated for political effect. A campaign that demands accountability from the incumbent must be prepared to practise it itself.
Democracy suffers when the ruling party evades scrutiny. It suffers equally when opposition parties substitute rhetoric for substance.
THE PRESIDENCY IS NOT A PARTY HEADQUARTERS
There is another troubling issue in this controversy: the use of the Presidential Villa for the inauguration of the APC Presidential Campaign Council.
The Presidency is a public institution, not the private property of a political party. The President is entitled to lead his party and campaign for re-election, but the distinction between official state functions and partisan political activities must remain clear.
Public institutions must not be made to appear subordinate to party interests. The symbolism matters, particularly in a democracy where public trust is already under pressure. The appropriate rules governing the use of official premises and public resources must be respected without exception.
The President should set the standard, not leave Nigerians wondering whether the lines between state and party have become dangerously blurred.
FACE THE PEOPLE
Tinubu is under no obligation to conduct an exhausting, state-by-state campaign simply to satisfy political theatrics. Campaign schedules must accommodate legitimate security, administrative and personal considerations. No responsible editorial judgment should demand that a president jeopardise his health or neglect urgent national duties for the sake of appearances.
But there is a difference between not visiting every state and refusing to account for one's stewardship.
The President can publish a transparent record of his administration’s achievements and failures. He can hold substantive town halls, grant unscripted interviews, answer questions from citizens and journalists, and ensure that his campaign team presents verifiable evidence rather than political slogans. He can also visit a representative cross-section of states while explaining clearly why other stops may not be possible.
What he cannot reasonably expect is that Nigerians will accept delegation as a substitute for accountability.
Ultimately, the 2027 election must be about more than who can draw the biggest crowd or deliver the most electrifying speech. It must be about performance, policy, integrity and the willingness to answer difficult questions.
Tinubu has the right to seek another term. Nigerians have an even more fundamental right to scrutinise that ambition.
A second-term mandate is not a gift to be collected. It is a verdict to be earned.
The President should therefore face the nation with candour, defend his record with evidence and explain why he deserves another four years. If his achievements speak for themselves, let him present them. If his policies have delivered the promised gains, let him demonstrate them. If mistakes have been made, let him acknowledge them and explain what he intends to do differently.
No surrogate can do this convincingly on his behalf.
In the final analysis, the campaign may belong to the APC, but the verdict belongs to Nigerians. Their hardship cannot be delegated. Their questions cannot be outsourced. And their votes cannot be commanded.
Tinubu must face the people—not because every campaign rally is sacred, but because accountability is.
Editorial: Tinubu Must Face the People
