Dave Baro-Thomas
A growing culture of non-serious aspirants or pretenders is distorting Nigeria’s democratic space and undermining credible political contests.
When Rueben Abati fired at Modele Sharafa-Yusuf, questioning her readiness and seriousness to contest the Ogun State gubernatorial election, some thought Dr. Abati was vicious. Others reduced his sincere interrogation to male chauvinism.
But as a seasoned journalist—and having tasted blood in the murky waters of politics when he contested as a deputy governorship aspirant—he was never more apt, nor in a firmer grip of his faculties, than when he shot at Mrs. Yusuf.
Now, Governor Dapo Abiodun, in the very state where Mrs. Yusuf intends to contest, has fired the first salvo. He has reportedly signalled Senator Solomon Olamilakan Adeola a.k.a. Yayi, as his preferred and consensus candidate on the APC gubernatorial ticket for the next election. This has, in many ways, put paid to any pretender dotting that space.
Political aspiration is the inalienable right of any citizen, provided he or she is of sound mind and meets the basic constitutional requirements. Tribe and religion are not in the schedule. That access is a fundamental condition in any democratic setting. However, the consistent clogging of the landscape by pretenders to the throne leaves much to be desired.
As the gates to active politicking gradually open and parties begin to conclude their conventions, the nation will be agog with all manner of individuals seeking political offices across all strata.
A cross-section of Nigerians is worried because, as Dr. Abati asked Mrs. Yusuf: are you doing this for other bargaining possibilities? Offensive as the question may sound, it cannot be dismissed. This is because a significant percentage of aspirants contesting governorship and presidential elections are either pawns, pretenders, placeholders, or job seekers, using such platforms as strategic bargaining tools for other positions.
This worrisome development has led most political parties to make access to such contests increasingly stringent. While some notorious parties, in one breath, deploy this strategy to edge out genuinely strong contenders who are not favoured by party leadership, more often than not, it is used as a mechanism to de-clog the space.
While this inalienable right must not be strangulated, the exigency to recalibrate the system—so that true contenders can pursue their legitimate aspirations—should provoke thoughtful electoral law reforms. Historically, these pretenders constitute a significant portion of the post-election nuisance in the polity.
They readily become willing tools in the hands of mischief-makers, creating distractions and dragging parties into pre-election litigations.
They not only burden the courts with endless and often frivolous suits, waste resources provided by political godfathers, and disturb our collective peace, but ultimately cast aspersions on the legitimacy of the entire process—leaving even the most serious contenders, especially at the presidential level, in limbo.
At the presidential level, the pattern is neither new nor accidental. In both the 2019 and 2023 election cycles, the ballot was crowded with dozens of candidates, many of whom had neither the structure, national spread, nor ideological clarity to mount a serious contest. Yet, their presence was not without consequence. Some served as negotiating instruments within party hierarchies; others functioned as strategic spoilers, fragmenting votes, diluting messaging, and, in some cases, creating grounds for post-election disputes.
The aftermath is often more damaging than the contest itself. Pre-election litigations over candidacies, substitutions, and delegate disputes have repeatedly travelled from party secretariats to the courts, and in extreme cases, up to the Supreme Court—sometimes long after winners have been declared and sworn in. This cycle not only strains judicial resources but also erodes public confidence in the electoral process.
If 2027 must not be a replay of this familiar script, then a hard conversation is overdue. Political parties must move beyond opportunistic gatekeeping and institute transparent, merit-based filters that reward credibility, capacity, and coherence of vision. Electoral laws, too, may require recalibration—tight enough to discourage opportunistic candidacies, yet open enough to preserve the democratic right to contest.
Democracy thrives on choice, but not on chaos. A ballot crowded with pretenders does not deepen democracy; it cheapens it. And if the system continues to reward noise over substance, then serious contenders will remain trapped in a theatre where ambition is abundant, but leadership is scarce.
