Nigeria’s political landscape is marked by influential figures and complex dynamics that shape power and authority within the state. Among these figures, Bola Tinubu, nicknamed Jagaban Borgu, stands out for his ability to exert pervasive influence and shape the political destiny of multiple actors.
Tinubu embodies the iconic figure of the political godfather, able to install his protégés in key positions and control the destiny of the country’s richest state, Lagos, for over 25 years. His ability to install two presidents at the helm of Nigeria, including himself, is a testament to his strategic acumen and his grip on the national political game.
Tinubu’s rise in the Nigerian political-strategic game has shaped a new paradigm around what political godfatherism represents. His model has inspired many incumbent governors to seek to match his influence, but the reality of this quest is proving to be more complex than expected.
The example of Atiku Abubakar, former Vice President of Nigeria, illustrates a different approach to political leadership. By handing over power to his deputy, Bonnie Haruna, and by adopting the role of mentor rather than godfather, Atiku was able to build bonds of trust and collaboration that lasted beyond his term.
Similarly, the experience of former Governor Ali Sheriff of Borno State highlights the risks of playing the role of Jagaban. After installing a successor, Kashim Shettima, Sheriff encountered unexpected resistance from the latter, who defended his autonomy and leadership in the face of pressure from predatory power.
Shettima’s political wisdom in recognizing the limits of excessive political patronage and his ability to pass the torch to a capable successor, Babagana Zulum, enhanced the stability and development of Borno State.
However, the parallel with the current situation in Rivers State, where Governor Ezenwo Nyesom Wike is attempting to replicate Tinubu’s patronage model, raises questions about the feasibility of this strategy in a different political and cultural context.
Wike’s resistance to accepting the specificities of river politics, based on an equitable system of power and a republican tradition, risks clashing with local realities and giving rise to internal tensions.
Ultimately, the example of Tinubu and the various Nigerian political actors underscores the importance of flexibility, prudence and recognition of local specificities in the management of political power. Political leadership cannot be reduced to a simple question of influence games, but must be based on trust, mutual respect and collaboration to ensure a stable and prosperous future for Nigeria.
This reflection invites us to rethink our conceptions of political power and to promote a more inclusive approach that respects regional particularities in the governance of the country.