By Passman Akpos
Nigeria’s political landscape could face renewed debate over regional power rotation ahead of the 2027 presidential election, following arguments that the controversy surrounding former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai could strain political relations between northern and southwestern political leaders.
The debate centres on whether northern political stakeholders who supported President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s emergence in 2023 will maintain the same level of cooperation ahead of the next election, particularly amid concerns raised over El-Rufai’s treatment and the political consequences of his reported detention by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
In an opinion article titled “Tinubu, Akintola, El-Rufai: Why the North Cannot Trust Southwest in 2027,” Mohammed Bello Doka questioned whether the political support that helped Tinubu secure the presidency had been adequately reciprocated.
Doka argued that the controversy surrounding El-Rufai could revive concerns about political trust, regional alliances and the future of zoning arrangements within Nigeria’s political parties.
However, the suggestion that the North could withdraw its support from Tinubu in 2027 remains a political argument rather than an established position shared by all northern leaders.
2027: Is The North-South Political Alliance Under Pressure?
The 2023 presidential election brought together political interests across Nigeria’s regions, with Tinubu emerging as the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate after the party’s presidential primary.
According to Doka, El-Rufai played an important role in building northern support for Tinubu, particularly after discussions among APC governors about transferring presidential power to the South.
The writer recalled reports that 12 of the 14 northern APC governors had agreed to support power rotation ahead of the 2023 election.
Doka also referenced the reported involvement of Professor Ishaq Akintola, founder of the Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC), in efforts to mobilise support for a Yoruba Muslim presidential candidate.
According to the article, Akintola and other Yoruba Muslim leaders sought El-Rufai’s assistance in reconciling Tinubu with northern political stakeholders despite previous disagreements between the two politicians.
Doka cited these alleged interventions as evidence of the political compromises that helped build the alliance preceding Tinubu’s emergence as president.
The central question raised by the writer is whether those political compromises created expectations that have since gone unmet.
Nevertheless, there is no established evidence in the material presented that northern political support was conditional on a specific reward or that all northern political leaders shared identical expectations.
El-Rufai’s Detention: Legal Process Or Political Fallout?
The controversy surrounding El-Rufai’s reported detention by the ICPC has become a focal point of the debate.
Doka questioned the response of prominent southwestern political figures, arguing that the perceived absence of stronger public support for El-Rufai could deepen suspicions among some northern political stakeholders.
The writer portrayed El-Rufai as an important participant in the political negotiations that helped Tinubu secure northern backing before the 2023 election.
He argued that the handling of the former Kaduna governor could influence how political allies assess future agreements ahead of 2027.
However, questions about political loyalty must be distinguished from the legal issues surrounding an investigation.
An investigation or detention does not, by itself, establish guilt or prove political persecution. Any allegations against El-Rufai must be assessed through the applicable legal process, alongside the positions of investigators and his representatives.
Similarly, the actions of law enforcement authorities should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of a regional political conspiracy without supporting evidence.
The controversy nevertheless raises questions about how political relationships may be affected when former allies become subjects of investigations.
MURIC’s Earlier Warning Resurfaces
Doka also revisited MURIC’s reported reaction to the Senate’s decision not to confirm El-Rufai’s ministerial nomination in August 2023.
According to the opinion article, the organisation warned that the decision could threaten political cooperation between the North and the Southwest.
Doka argued that the current controversy has revived concerns about the stability of alliances formed around electoral interests.
The broader issue is whether political coalitions can survive disagreements over appointments, influence, investigations and the treatment of influential political figures.
For parties seeking broad national support, the challenge is to balance competing interests without allowing individual disputes to undermine wider political cooperation.
However, the positions of MURIC, El-Rufai and individual northern political figures should not be treated as representative of every voter or political stakeholder in the region.
North Vs South: Who Has Held Nigeria’s Presidency Longer?
The argument over political trust has also reopened discussions about the distribution of presidential power since Nigeria returned to democratic rule in 1999.
The historical record shows that Nigeria has had presidents from both the North and the South during the period.
Olusegun Obasanjo, from the Southwest, served from 1999 to 2007, completing eight years in office.
Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, from the North, served from 2007 until his death in May 2010, approximately three years into his four-year term.
Goodluck Jonathan, from the South-South, succeeded Yar’Adua and served until May 2015, completing approximately five years in office.
Muhammadu Buhari, from the North, served two terms between 2015 and 2023, completing eight years.
Tinubu, from the Southwest, assumed office in May 2023.
Using these presidential tenures, the regional breakdown from 1999 to Tinubu’s inauguration in 2023 was approximately:
- South: 13 years — Obasanjo’s eight years and Jonathan’s approximately five years.
- North: 11 years — Yar’Adua’s approximately three years and Buhari’s eight years.
The distinction matters because the frequently cited figure of 14 years for the South and 11 years for the North does not precisely match the actual time served by the presidents listed above.
The calculation can also vary depending on whether political analysts count calendar years, complete presidential terms or the actual dates officeholders served.
Tinubu’s first term is scheduled to end in May 2027. If re-elected, he would remain in office until 2031, potentially extending the Southwest’s uninterrupted presidential tenure to eight years.
That possibility could intensify discussions over whether the next presidential candidate should emerge from the North or whether the APC should retain a southern candidate.
However, Nigeria’s Constitution does not establish a legally binding North-South presidential rotation. Zoning remains a political arrangement negotiated within parties and among political stakeholders.
Will Northern Political Leaders Reconsider Tinubu’s Second-Term Bid?
Doka argued that northern political leaders could reconsider their support for Tinubu if they conclude that their contribution to the 2023 electoral alliance was not adequately reciprocated.
The argument raises questions about the future of the APC’s coalition, particularly as political actors begin positioning themselves ahead of the 2027 election.
Would disagreements over El-Rufai affect negotiations over zoning? Could northern stakeholders demand stronger guarantees concerning political appointments and influence? Or would broader party interests encourage them to maintain their existing relationships?
These remain open questions.
The North is not a politically uniform bloc. Its governors, legislators, traditional institutions, religious organisations, political parties and voters have different interests and may reach different conclusions about the next presidential election.
Likewise, southwestern political leaders do not necessarily share a single position on El-Rufai or the future of the alliance.
Consequently, the controversy alone cannot establish that northern political support for Tinubu has collapsed or that a regional confrontation is inevitable.
The eventual direction of the debate will depend on party negotiations, candidate selection, political interests, governance issues and voter preferences.
The Bigger Question: Can Political Alliances Survive Disagreements?
At the heart of Doka’s argument is the belief that political alliances require reciprocity, mutual respect and confidence among their members.
His position is that the North should reconsider its approach to zoning ahead of 2027 unless concerns surrounding El-Rufai’s treatment are addressed.
The argument also highlights a recurring feature of Nigerian politics: alliances that unite political actors during elections can face pressure when disagreements emerge over appointments, access to power and competing expectations.
For Tinubu and the APC, maintaining cooperation across Nigeria’s regions will involve navigating competing interests while addressing public concerns about governance and accountability.
For northern political stakeholders, the debate concerns the balance between regional interests, party loyalty and the political benefits of continued cooperation.
For the Southwest, questions about power rotation will remain part of the wider debate over regional representation and the future direction of the country’s political parties.
Ultimately, whether the controversy surrounding El-Rufai significantly affects the 2027 presidential election remains uncertain.
What is clear is that the debate has reopened questions about political trust, the distribution of presidential power and whether alliances built before an election can withstand disagreements after power has been secured.
As 2027 approaches, the central question is not simply whether the North will support Tinubu again, but whether Nigeria’s political leaders can sustain cross-regional cooperation despite competing interests and unresolved controversies.
