Tinubu’s “I Won’t Visit Every Place for Campaign”

Monday Column By Bagudu Mohammed

bagudumohammed15197@gmail.com | 07034943575

On October 14, 2026, while inaugurating his Presidential Campaign Council (PCC) at the Presidential Villa in Abuja, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu announced that he would not physically accompany his campaign team to every state. Responding to Governor Hope Uzodimma’s advice that electioneering should not distract him from governance, Tinubu agreed that Nigeria needed his attention, stressing that presidential responsibilities would continue even as the campaign progressed. He promised to communicate directly with Nigerians while allowing party leaders to mobilise support nationwide, adding that there were bills to pay and American creditors could not wait.

Importantly, Tinubu did not announce his withdrawal from campaigning or refuse to address Nigerians. He indicated that his physical appearances would be selective, distinguishing absence from abandonment. That distinction became the centre of the controversy.

Media organisations framed his remarks differently. Some emphasised continuity of government and highlighted the tension between governance and electioneering, others focused on delegation and his promise to address Nigerians directly. Yet, others reported the constitutional argument that neither the Constitution nor electoral laws require presidential candidates to visit all 36 states. A particular newspaper captured the division between those who considered the decision reasonable and those who saw it as avoidance of direct accountability. This illustrates Robert Entman’s framing theory: the same statement can generate different interpretations depending on which aspects receive emphasis.

Opposition figures were largely critical. Atiku Abubakar’s campaign argued that Tinubu should personally defend his economic policies and account for hardship, insecurity, food prices and unemployment. Peter Obi maintained that mobilisation could be delegated, but accountability could not. The Labour Party similarly questioned why a president capable of undertaking foreign trips could not visit Nigerian states to explain his policies. Other critics interpreted the decision as an attempt to avoid public resentment, although suggestions of medical unfitness remained political speculation rather than established evidence.

Conversely, APC figures defended the approach. Obafemi George argued that no law compelled Tinubu to attend every campaign rally. Adams Oshiomhole compared modern political communication to online teaching, while Dele Alake maintained that a sitting president should not abandon governance for political rallies. A proposed timetable of selected appearances across 12 states further demonstrated that the president was not withdrawing entirely from the campaign.

The debate acquired another dimension following Hon. Dr Sunny Oby Maduka’s article, The Arrogance of a Conqueror Is to Assume That All the Citizens Are Idiots, published by Independent Newspaper on October 24, 2026. He interpreted Tinubu’s statement as evidence of political arrogance, arguing that a president who believes he does not need to personally seek Nigerians’ votes treats them as inconsequential. It was a powerful but uncompromising interpretation.

However, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s warning about the danger of a single story offers a useful perspective. A single narrative may contain elements of truth without representing the entire reality. Tinubu’s decision could reasonably be interpreted as arrogance or avoidance, but it could equally reflect an attempt to balance presidential responsibilities with electoral demands. The truth requires examining both possibilities.

One assumption worth questioning is that physical campaign appearances automatically provide meaningful opportunities for accountability. Although rallies can demonstrate commitment, humility and accessibility, they are frequently dominated by praise-singing, party mobilisation and political symbolism rather than genuine interaction between candidates and voters. Murray Edelman’s The Symbolic Uses of Politics explains how political activities often dramatise power, loyalty and belonging rather than encourage substantive deliberation.

Similarly, Angus Campbell’s Michigan model of voting behaviour and Lazarsfeld’s research suggest that party identification and established political loyalties often influence voting decisions more strongly than campaign exposure. Campaigns frequently reinforce existing preferences rather than convert committed supporters. This does not make physical engagement irrelevant, but it challenges the assumption that visiting every state is indispensable to electoral success.

Tinubu’s strategy also has potential advantages. Governance itself can become a campaign instrument. Remaining in Abuja allows him to supervise government activities, attend to national responsibilities and present his administration’s policies and achievements as evidence of performance. Modern communication platforms, including television, radio and social media, also make nationwide engagement possible without physical attendance at every rally.

Delegation is equally important. Governors, ministers and party leaders can mobilise support in their respective states while the president concentrates on national responsibilities. This reflects the principal-agent approach, in which political leaders delegate responsibilities to trusted representatives while retaining strategic oversight. However, delegation cannot completely replace the personal responsibility of a presidential candidate to explain decisions and defend his record.

Historical examples demonstrate that physical campaign attendance is not a guarantee of victory. Joe Biden successfully conducted much of his 2020 campaign virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic, while Goodluck Jonathan’s extensive nationwide campaign in 2015 did not prevent his electoral defeat. Conversely, successful incumbents have often relied on established party structures and political surrogates. The effectiveness of any approach ultimately depends on public confidence, political organisation and governance performance.

There is, however, a legitimate concern about the impression Tinubu’s decision creates regarding his age, physical capacity and health. Although these concerns deserve consideration, they should not automatically become grounds for discrimination or political disqualification. His constitutional right to seek re-election remains, and voters should retain the freedom to decide whether they prefer an older, experienced candidate or a younger and more physically energetic alternative. Age alone is not a reliable measure of leadership competence.

Another troubling dimension is Nigeria’s growing culture of political intolerance, violence and attacks on dissenting voices. Disagreement over candidates and political strategies increasingly becomes an excuse for harassment, intimidation and mob action. Religious clerics and ordinary citizens are sometimes attacked for expressing views contrary to perceived regional or group interests. Such behaviour undermines democracy, which depends on the freedom to disagree without becoming enemies.

As Levitsky and Ziblatt explain in How Democracies Die, democratic decline often begins with the gradual normalisation of intolerance and the treatment of political opponents as enemies. Perhaps a less physically intensive, well-organised campaign could reduce unnecessary confrontations and security risks, provided it does not become an excuse to avoid genuine public engagement.

There is also a broader political consideration surrounding power rotation. With the presidency having shifted to the South in 2023, Tinubu’s re-election could allow the region to complete its expected two-term tenure, although this remains a political convention rather than a constitutional entitlement. Such considerations, alongside national cohesion and political stability, form part of the arguments supporters may advance for his continued candidacy. Ultimately, however, voters must remain free to choose without coercion or the imposition of regional expectations.

Tinubu’s approach is therefore neither automatically brilliant nor necessarily arrogant. It is a political gamble with potential benefits and considerable risks. His administration must demonstrate that governance will not suffer because of campaigning, while his campaign organisation must ensure that delegation does not become a substitute for accountability.

The ultimate test will not be how many campaign grounds the president visits, but whether Nigerians consider his performance worthy of another mandate. Physical presence matters, but so do competence, accessibility, accountability and results. A president seeking re-election must understand that while he may delegate mobilisation, he cannot delegate the people’s judgment of his leadership.