An opinion piece titled “Atiku as the Soul of the Opposition” authored by Suleiman Tajudeen and published in The Whistler newspaper on January 13, 2025, warrants a pointed rebuttal, for it is nothing short of a misleading and insidious attempt to undermine the collective wisdom of Nigerians. The author claims that Atiku is so consumed by the lust for power that he is willing to do “anything—right or wrong” to seize it. Bernard Baruch once wisely stated that every man is entitled to his opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts. It is for this very reason that this article must be challenged—lest the author’s distorted logic and selective narrative mislead innocent readers.
The assertion that Atiku would resort to any means to attain power stands in stark contrast to historical record. Atiku’s supporters, to their credit, have never resorted to violence or voter suppression in their quest for his presidential ambition. Can the same be said of his adversaries in the APC? Why did the author conveniently omit the scenes of violence and intimidation in Lagos, perpetuated by those on the other side of the political spectrum? Nothing, in truth, exemplifies desperation more than attempting to climb the ladder of power upon a pile of corpses. Yet, the author chose to remain silent on the harassment of Peter Obi’s supporters by the very APC operatives he seems to champion.
Tajudeen’s claim that Atiku’s ambition led to the destruction of the PDP is equally fallacious. The true architects of the party’s woes are APC operatives like Nyesom Wike, who, motivated by self-interest, sabotaged the PDP to bolster Tinubu’s electoral prospects in 2023. Wike’s actions were not rooted in concern for the South, as the author would have readers believe, but in his personal opportunism. If Atiku’s ambition is the true villain, then what are we to make of APC operatives like Wike, who have no interest in fostering a vibrant opposition but rather prefer to serve as saboteurs? Peter Obi’s departure from the PDP, catalyzed by Wike’s machinations, further underlines the destructive influence of such figures on the health of the nation’s democratic landscape. Wike is notorious for his election-rigging tactics, boasting openly of his role in installing Fubara as governor. Such rhetoric, replete with menace, is the hallmark of an individual whose quest for power knows no bounds.
The author’s failure to address the same sense of desperation in Bola Tinubu’s pursuit of power speaks volumes. If Tinubu’s concern was genuinely for the South, why did he not advocate for a power shift to the South-East, considering the South-West had enjoyed eight years under General Obasanjo? Why, instead, did he deny Osinbajo the opportunity to run, despite the latter’s long and distinguished tenure as Vice President? Yet, despite this, the author chooses to label Atiku as desperate—an irony that cannot be overlooked.
Tajudeen’s complaints about Atiku’s alleged “sense of entitlement” are equally hypocritical. Did Tinubu, too, not display a profound sense of entitlement when he refused to allow Osinbajo to contest the presidential ticket? The very masters the author defends stand infinitely more guilty of the charges he levels at Atiku. It is truly bewildering for the author to simultaneously condemn Atiku’s ambition while questioning his right to contest in 2027. If the so-called “Emilokan syndrome” is indeed a plague, one must ask whether it is not Tinubu’s own brand of politics that has led Nigeria into the depths of the current crisis. The incompetence of the APC under his leadership has created a calamity of epic proportions for Nigerians, a disaster far worse than anything Atiku’s political trajectory could be accused of causing.
Before calling for Atiku to step aside, the author should have directed such advice to Tinubu, who has been at the helm since 2015 and has yet to demonstrate any meaningful results from his mandate. Why, indeed, should Atiku heed the call to leave the stage when the ovation is loudest, while Tinubu, despite his many failures, continues to seek more power in 2027? The author’s concerns about Atiku’s future are, at best, misplaced—since it is not his prerogative to dictate such matters, but rather the will of the Nigerian people.
Instead of castigating Atiku, the author would have been better served by addressing the true saboteurs of Nigeria’s opposition, such as Wike, who remain determined to dismantle the party for personal gain. Wike’s influence has ensured the erosion of a strong opposition, reducing the nation’s political landscape to one where only the APC dominates. Should Tinubu discard Wike as a minister today, he would, without a doubt, turn his sights on the president. It is clear that Wike’s loyalty lies not with the South but with his own narrow self-interest.
The author’s reluctance to critique the power players like Wike who have undermined Nigeria’s political system reflects a cowardly disregard for the truth. By focusing his attacks on Atiku, the author conveniently overlooks the crucial role of such opportunists in bringing the country to the brink of a one-party state. The idea that Atiku’s ambition is the source of Nigeria’s woes is laughable, particularly when the nation’s most pressing challenges are the direct result of the APC’s internal machinations and its stranglehold on power.
In sum, this article is a misguided attempt to mislead and obfuscate the real issues at hand. Instead of engaging in meaningful discourse, Tajudeen chooses to indulge in wishful thinking, undermining the intelligence and judgment of the Nigerian people. It is a deeply unfortunate piece, and the author would do well to reflect on the true nature of Nigeria’s political crisis before casting aspersions on those who stand against it.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Balogun, a public affairs analyst, writes from Ibadan.
