ABUJA — As Nigerians debate the authenticity of their leaders’ democratic credentials, the resurfacing of a 2019 interview by Kola Abiola has cast a provocative shadow over President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s origins as an anti-military crusader. The account suggests a “cash-based” political pattern that critics say is now being mirrored by high-profile converts like Reno Omokri, Femi Fani-Kayode, and Daniel Bwala.
According to Kola Abiola, son of the late MKO Abiola, Tinubu’s entry into the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) was not an immediate act of principle but a reaction to being sidelined by General Sani Abacha. Abiola claims Tinubu initially lobbied for three different posts under the military regime—civilian administrator of Lagos, deputy to the military administrator, and finally a commissioner. It was only after “losing out” to an ally of Lateef Jakande that Tinubu “automatically became a NADECO member.”
The Ideology of the Highest Bidder?
This narrative has sparked a fierce debate about a specific brand of Nigerian politics where “principles” are often traded for “appointments.” Critics are drawing sharp parallels between Tinubu’s alleged 1993 pivot and the modern trajectories of several prominent figures:
Reno Omokri & Femi Fani-Kayode: Once among the most vitriolic critics of the APC and Tinubu, both have undergone dramatic “conversions.” Fani-Kayode, who once famously said he would “rather die than join the APC,” formally defected to the party in 2021 to “move Nigeria forward.” Similarly, Reno Omokri has recently endorsed Tinubu for a second term, citing “economic miracles” and arguing that “results cancel insults.”
Daniel Bwala: A former spokesperson for Atiku Abubakar’s 2023 campaign and a fierce critic of the APC, Bwala recently accepted an appointment as President Tinubu’s Special Adviser on Media and Public Communications. Critics describe his shift as a “betrayal,” especially after his past tweets claimed that joining the APC “stops the human brain from working.”
A Pattern of Convenience
The comparison suggests that the “mercenary” style of politics seen today—where opposition is merely a waiting room for a government paycheck—may have been pioneered decades ago. If Abiola’s account holds true, the very foundation of Tinubu’s “heroism” was a reaction to being sidelined from the military’s inner circle. This mirrors the public perception of Omokri, Fani-Kayode, and Bwala, whose political “conversions” are frequently mocked as “stomach infrastructure.”
For many observers, this explains the current state of Nigeria’s weakened institutions. When leadership is built on a foundation of personal gain rather than conviction, the resulting government often prioritizes convenience over the welfare of the people.
Silence and Scrutiny
The Presidency has historically dismissed these claims as the “bitter grievances” of political rivals, maintaining that Tinubu’s record in the 1990s speaks for itself. Yet, as the ADC leadership battle and the 2027 race loom, the question of whether Nigeria is run by patriots or by those whose “ideology” is simply a matter of who signs the checks remains a central theme of national discourse.
