The communiqué issued after the Ibadan opposition summit reflects a familiar pattern, strong rhetoric against the ruling party, yet a troubling absence of introspection. As someone who has observed and participated in progressive struggles, I find it necessary to state that opposition parties in Nigeria are increasingly opposing themselves, fragmented, ideologically weak, and often driven by elite bargains rather than a coherent people-centered agenda. What we are witnessing is not merely a weak opposition, but a self-sabotaging formation, one that risks rendering itself irrelevant at a critical historical moment.
There is no doubt that governance under Bola Ahmed Tinubu has raised serious concerns, ranging from economic hardship to democratic shrinkage. Policies associated with recent reforms have intensified the cost-of-living crisis, deepened inequality, and stretched the resilience of ordinary Nigerians. At the same time, allegations of institutional bias involving the Independent National Electoral Commission and sections of the judiciary continue to generate public distrust. These concerns are not trivial, they strike at the core of democratic legitimacy. However, it is not enough to merely point at these institutions, the opposition must demonstrate superior moral authority, strategic clarity, and organizational discipline.
But, what emerges from the communiqué is an elite-driven orientation, one that prioritizes candidate permutations, electoral timelines, and power-sharing arrangements over the urgent task of building a mass-based political alternative. The recurring call for a “united presidential candidate” without a unifying ideological framework risk becoming another opportunistic coalition, one that is assembled for electoral convenience rather than grounded in shared principles. Such arrangements have historically collapsed under the weight of contradictions, leaving the electorate disillusioned and politically fatigued.
More troubling, however, is the growing perception that some top political actors within the opposition are, in fact, “Maradona”, masters of political maneuvering, who deploy the platform of opposition not as a vehicle for genuine change, but as leverage for backdoor negotiations with the ruling establishment. In this sense, opposition politics becomes transactional, less about contesting power for transformation, and more about bargaining for inclusion, protection, or future advantage. This culture of duplicity erodes public trust and reinforces the belief that there is little substantive difference between the ruling party and its supposed challengers.
This internal contradiction weakens the credibility of the opposition and undermines its capacity to mobilize the masses. When political actors oscillate between confrontation in public and compromise in private, they send conflicting signals to citizens who are already burdened by economic hardship and political uncertainty. The result is a widening gap between political elites and the people – a gap that cannot be bridged by communiqués or summit declarations alone.
The consequences of this failure are far-reaching. Young people, who constitute a significant portion of Nigeria’s population, are increasingly disillusioned. Faced with unemployment, insecurity, and limited opportunities, many are losing faith in formal political processes. This disillusionment risks translating into apathy, withdrawal, or even hostility toward democratic engagement. It is within this context that figures like Omoyele Sowore gain a measure of credibility, projecting consistency and ideological clarity, even if operating outside the mainstream political architecture.
The danger here is not simply the rise of alternative voices, but the failure of established opposition parties to provide a credible channel for political expression. When citizens cannot find representation within formal structures, they either disengage or seek unconventional pathways, both of which carry implications for democratic stability. A democracy without a vibrant, trusted opposition is inherently fragile.
Equally important is the role of the labour movement in this unfolding scenario. Historically, the labour movement has been a cornerstone of resistance, mobilizing workers, challenging unjust policies, and articulating the demands of the oppressed. In Nigeria, its legacy is deeply intertwined with struggles for democracy and social justice. However, in recent times, the movement appears weakened, constrained by internal contradictions, leadership compromises, and a tendency toward reactive rather than proactive engagement.
Despite this evident rottenness, the labour movement remains a critical platform for rebuilding opposition politics. Its organizational reach, historical legitimacy, and connection to the working class position it as a potential anchor for a mass-based alternative. What is required, however, is a fundamental reorientation, away from transactional engagements with political elites and toward a renewed commitment to class struggle and grassroots mobilization. Without such a shift, the movement risks becoming an appendage of the very system it once challenged.
Another dimension that deserves attention is the structural imbalance within Nigeria’s political economy. The concentration of power and resources at the center has created incentives for political actors to prioritize access to state power over ideological consistency. In such a context, opposition politics becomes less about offering alternative visions of governance and more about negotiating entry into the existing system. This dynamic reinforces the cycle of opportunism and undermines efforts to build a principled political movement.
The communiqué’s emphasis on resisting a one-party state is valid and necessary. However, resistance alone is insufficient. What is required is reconstruction, a deliberate effort to build institutions, articulate policies, and cultivate leadership that is accountable to the people. This involves engaging with communities, understanding their needs, and translating those needs into actionable political programs. It also requires a commitment to internal democracy, ensuring that opposition parties themselves embody the values they seek to promote at the national level.
Furthermore, the question of electoral reform, while important, should not overshadow the broader challenge of political organization. Free and fair elections are essential, but they are only meaningful when there are credible alternatives for citizens to choose from. Without such alternatives, even the most transparent electoral process cannot produce transformative outcomes.
In reflecting on the current state of opposition politics in Nigeria, it becomes clear that the crisis is both structural and behavioral. Structural, in the sense that the political system incentivizes opportunism and discourages ideological clarity; behavioral, in the sense that political actors often choose short-term gains over long-term transformation. Addressing this dual crisis requires both systemic reform and a shift in political culture.
The real challenge is not just resisting a dominant ruling party, but constructing a credible, mass-driven alternative, one that is rooted in the aspirations of ordinary Nigerians and capable of translating those aspirations into policy and practice. Missing this moment carries significant risks. It may deepen democratic decline, entrench economic inequality, and further alienate citizens from the political process.
If the opposition continues on its current trajectory, marked by fragmentation, opportunism, and self-sabotage, it risks becoming irrelevant in the eyes of the people. And in that vacuum, the promise of democracy itself may begin to fade. The task, therefore, is urgent and unavoidable: to move beyond rhetoric and build a politics that is truly representative, accountable, and transformative.