Nigeria’s democracy has never survived merely on constitutional texts. It has survived largely on delicate political understandings, elite consensus, and unwritten agreements designed to preserve national stability in a deeply divided federation. Among these understandings, none has been more consequential than the principle of rotational presidency between the North and the South.
It may not be expressly codified in the Nigerian Constitution, yet it has become one of the foundational stabilizers of the Fourth Republic since 1999. The failure of the opposition coalition under the African Democratic Congress (ADC) to respect this political reality appears to have triggered the very implosion that many observers feared.
At the heart of the crisis lies the perception that Atiku Abubakar, despite his experience and political stature, placed personal ambition above national political equilibrium by seeking to position himself again as the presidential standard-bearer of the coalition at a time many Nigerians believe power should remain in Southern Nigeria until 2031.
The consequence has been predictable: internal distrust, factional struggles, endless litigations, ideological confusion, and eventually, the fragmentation of the coalition itself, culminating in the departure of Peter Obi from the ADC-aligned coalition amid reported internal disputes.
Nigeria’s Democracy Runs on Political Balance, Not Just Law
To understand why zoning and rotational presidency remain sensitive issues, one must first understand Nigeria itself.
Nigeria is not a homogeneous nation-state in the traditional sense. It is a federation of over 250 ethnic groups, multiple religions, competing regional identities, and uneven historical experiences. Since independence in 1960, the country has struggled continuously with questions of inclusion, fairness, domination, and representation. The ghosts of the First Republic, the civil war, military coups, annulled elections, and ethno-religious tensions still shape Nigeria’s political consciousness today.
This is precisely why the political elite, after the return to democracy in 1999, informally embraced the doctrine of power rotation between North and South. The arrangement was designed to reassure every region that no section would permanently monopolise national power.
Former President Olusegun Obasanjo from the South served eight years between 1999 and 2007. Then came Umaru Musa Yar’Adua from the North, whose tenure was cut short by death.
Goodluck Jonathan from the South completed Yar’Adua’s term and later won another election.
Subsequently, Muhammadu Buhari from the North governed for eight uninterrupted years from 2015 to 2023.
By this informal but politically significant arithmetic, many Nigerians believe the South should equally complete eight years through the administration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu or from the opposition coalition (4years) before power returns to the North. This sentiment is not merely emotional; it is rooted in Nigeria’s survival logic.
The 2023 PDP Crisis Should Have Been a Lesson
The opposition ought to have learned from the crisis that engulfed the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in 2023.
The PDP’s decision to field Atiku Abubakar, a northerner, after eight years of Buhari from the North created deep resentment, especially among Southern stakeholders. That controversy fractured the party internally and produced the G-5 governors’ rebellion led by Nyesom Wike. The argument advanced by the G-5 was simple: equity demanded that the presidency remain in the South after Buhari’s tenure.
That internal rebellion significantly weakened the PDP during the 2023 election cycle, and currently brought to party to her knees today.
Ironically, the ADC coalition appears to have repeated the same strategic error. Even before the coalition could fully consolidate, tensions reportedly emerged around the issue of who would emerge as presidential candidate. Several analysts warned that any attempt to hand the ticket to another northern candidate risked alienating Southern voters and weakening the coalition’s moral argument against the ruling APC.
Atiku’s Political Calculation Versus Nigeria’s Political Psychology
No one can deny Atiku Abubakar’s political relevance. He remains one of Nigeria’s most experienced politicians, with a formidable network across the country. He has contested for the presidency multiple times and retains substantial influence, particularly in Northern Nigeria.
However, politics is not merely about constitutional permissibility; it is also about public perception, timing, and national mood.
Technically, Atiku is correct when he argues that zoning is not constitutionally binding. But Nigeria’s politics has never been governed solely by constitutional technicalities. It has always depended on political sensitivity and elite restraint.
The central problem was therefore not legality but legitimacy.
Many Southern Nigerians viewed another Atiku presidential bid as an attempt to prematurely interrupt the South’s turn after Buhari’s eight years. That perception weakened trust within the coalition and made consensus increasingly difficult.
For supporters of Peter Obi and many Southern stakeholders, the issue became larger than personalities. It evolved into a question of fairness, reciprocity, and political justice.
Why Peter Obi’s Exit Symbolizes More Than Party Crisis
The reported departure of Peter Obi from the ADC coalition is symbolic of a deeper structural failure within the opposition.
Obi represented more than an individual candidacy; he represented a generational movement energized by youth frustration, economic hardship, governance failures, and demands for political reform.
The “Obidient” movement in 2023 demonstrated an unprecedented shift in Nigeria’s electoral culture, especially among urban youths and first-time voters. In many Southern states and parts of the Middle Belt, Obi’s candidacy was interpreted not merely as partisan politics but as a movement for political rebirth. For such a movement to subordinate itself once again to an older Northern political establishment within the coalition was always going to be difficult.
Once trust broke down internally, the coalition’s contradictions became impossible to hide.
APC’s Alleged Destabilisation Tactics Were Not the Coalition’s Only Problem
There are claims among opposition figures that elements within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) sought to destabilise the ADC coalition through proxy battles, litigations, and infiltration. Such allegations are common in Nigerian politics, especially during periods of opposition realignment.
Indeed, internal court cases and factional crises reportedly contributed to the coalition’s instability.
However, external pressure alone cannot destroy a coalition that possesses internal coherence, trust, and ideological clarity.
The deeper problem was that the coalition never resolved its foundational contradiction: whether it existed primarily to remove Tinubu or to uphold a credible national power-sharing arrangement.
Without agreement on zoning, mutual suspicion became inevitable.
Nigeria’s Political Reality Cannot Be Ignored
Nigeria’s political history repeatedly shows that any coalition perceived as insensitive to regional balance struggles to achieve national legitimacy.
The annulment of the June 12, 1993 election triggered national outrage largely because many Nigerians believed the South-West had been unjustly denied power after Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola was prevented from assuming office.
Similarly, the post-2010 tensions following President Yar’Adua’s death exposed the fragility of Nigeria’s zoning arrangement.
These precedents demonstrate one enduring truth: fairness in Nigeria is not merely constitutional — it is psychological and symbolic.
A country as diverse and fragile as Nigeria survives through careful balancing.
The Opposition Coalition’s Missed Opportunity
The tragedy of the ADC coalition is that it had a genuine opportunity to build a formidable national alliance against the APC government.
Economic hardship, inflation, naira instability, unemployment, insecurity, and public dissatisfaction created fertile ground for a united opposition front.
But coalitions collapse when individual ambitions overshadow collective strategy.
Had the coalition unequivocally supported a Southern candidate for 2027 while negotiating a return of power to the North afterward, it might have built broader national legitimacy and stronger electoral cohesion.
Instead, the zoning controversy reopened old wounds and deepened mistrust among coalition partners.
Nigeria Needs Equity More Than Political Expediency
The lesson from the ADC coalition crisis is straightforward: Nigeria’s democracy cannot endure without political sensitivity to its plural character.
Rotational presidency may not be written into the Constitution, but it has become an unwritten covenant of national coexistence.
In a nation where perceptions of exclusion can rapidly inflame division, political actors must rise above personal ambition and think historically.
The issue is not whether Atiku Abubakar possesses the constitutional right to contest. He does.
The issue is whether insisting on another Northern candidacy immediately after Buhari’s eight years aligns with the moral expectations, political psychology, and delicate balancing principle upon which Nigeria’s Fourth Republic has largely survived.
For many Nigerians, especially in the South, the answer is no.
And perhaps that is the contradiction that ultimately fractured the coalition before it could truly become an alternative government.
Dozie Nwankodu is an advocate for good governance and development. He writes from Lagos, Nigeria. Email: dozzyreview@gmail.com
