President Bola Tinubu recently said, “all is fair in politics.” He may have meant it as a confident comment from someone already thinking about the 2027 election. But when a sitting president says this, it means more. A president holds great power, shapes public institutions, and sets the tone for political behaviour. Politics should not be seen as a game without rules or consequences, especially when the speaker leads the government.
Thinking that anything goes in politics is not clever or sophisticated. It is not a sign of strategic genius, but a risky way of thinking that puts staying in power above doing what is right for democracy. Leaders often make their worst choices when they fear losing more than they care about governing well. When that fear shows, it gives others a chance to take advantage of how much a leader wants to stay in power.
President Tinubu seems to care less about how things look to ordinary Nigerians and more about what APC leaders, loyalists, and his close circle think. People with their own interests notice when a leader wants something so much that he ignores warning signs. They act loyal, support his views, and say what they think will keep them close to power. The advice the president gets becomes just as important as the choices he makes.
People close to power might overstate successes, ignore real criticism, and call every hard truth opposition propaganda. Some do this to keep their jobs, contracts, or influence. If a leader only hears comforting words, he can lose touch with the country he leads. This problem gets worse when advisers treat all criticism as an attack instead of useful information.
Daniel Bwala is just one example of an adviser whose public comments should be looked at more closely. The main issue is whether people around President Tinubu are telling him the truth about Nigeria or just defending the government no matter what. I lost confidence in Bwala’s arguments after his Al Jazeera interview with Mehdi Hasan, where he kept arguing even when shown evidence. Advisers who always defend the government may find it hard to give the honest advice a president needs in difficult times.
Bishops, journalists, civil society groups, and everyday Nigerians should not be attacked just for talking about hardship, insecurity, and frustration. Their job is not to make the government feel good, but to say things leaders might not want to hear. If the presidency doubts every critic’s motives, it risks missing the information it needs to govern well. Ignoring criticism can also make people lose trust in the fairness of state institutions.
This week, the EFCC froze an Osun State Government account just days before the governorship election, and it happened while President Tinubu was in office. The agency might have had good reasons, but the timing looked suspicious and created the impression that federal power could affect the election. Even if the action was legal, taking it so close to an election in an opposition state could damage public trust. The EFCC should explain not just why it acted, but why it acted at that particular time.
The timing was similar to when former FBI Director James Comey told Congress, shortly before the 2016 United States presidential election, that the bureau was examining new material related to Hillary Clinton’s email case. That announcement came 11 days before the election and quickly became part of the campaign story. People still debate whether it changed the result, but it showed how law enforcement actions can affect elections, even when officials say they are acting independently. Institutions should think not just about whether they can act, but also about whether the timing could appear to be interference.
Leaders are responsible not only for what they personally order, but also for the political climate created by institutions operating under their watch. When the public already suspects that a government is desperate to consolidate power, badly timed institutional actions deepen those suspicions. History shows how easily the fear of losing can damage judgment, weaken legitimacy, and bring leaders to the political end they were trying to avoid.
Richard Nixon was so focused on protecting his presidency that the Watergate cover-up ended up destroying it. His attempt to maintain control led to his resignation in 1974, as he faced almost certain impeachment. His drive to remain in office brought about the very outcome he feared. Robert Mugabe faced a similar fate, but after a longer and more damaging struggle to stay in power.
Mugabe’s drive to remain in power for almost forty years weakened institutions, worsened succession conflicts, and left him increasingly out of touch with reality. By 2017, the military had intervened, his own party had abandoned him, and he was forced to resign. Someone once seen as untouchable lost the authority he had worked so hard to preserve. Both Nixon and Mugabe showed that trying too hard to survive politically can backfire when leaders stop listening, which makes Tinubu’s distance from ordinary Nigerians stand out.
Does President Tinubu truly know what people are experiencing in markets, hospitals, schools, and communities affected by insecurity? Is he hearing the real situation, or is the truth being softened before it reaches him? A government cannot fix problems it does not see clearly, and no leader can fully understand a country simply by reading briefings. Staying in touch with the public is one of the best ways to avoid this kind of isolation.
President Donald Trump has visited several states this year, excluding routine travel within Washington, D.C., Camp David, and transit stops. Those visits include Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Texas, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, California, and Nevada. Anyone following his movements can see that he does not simply remain inside the White House, disconnected from the country that voted him into office. Constant travel does not guarantee perfect policy, but it reduces the distance between a leader and the people he governs.
Trump’s political strength partly comes from staying in touch with his supporters. When he talks about their concerns, it often seems as though he has heard them directly and repeatedly. Leaders who spend time with the public are less likely to confuse loyal praise with the real mood of the country. Tinubu should ask himself whether he is hearing enough from Nigerians outside the APC and his inner circle.
From my studies in strategic intelligence, I have learned that desperation is a major weakness for leaders. People, especially those in positions of authority, often make their worst decisions when they believe losing is not an option. Desperation narrows their vision, encourages risk-taking, and makes them easier to manipulate by those who understand their fears. It can also make them confuse loyalty with competence, institutional pressure with strategy, and honest criticism with betrayal.
President Tinubu still has time to change direction, but it starts with listening to more than party loyalists and political supporters. He needs to wake up, reconnect with the real problems facing everyday Nigerians, and stop the democratic decline taking place under his leadership. He must also ensure that federal institutions are truly neutral and are seen to be neutral during elections. Leaders who believe anything goes in politics often discover too late that their determination to remain in power has made their country pay a heavy price.
By: Abidemi Adebamiwa
(Ripples)