Ibadan Declaration: A Coalition of Convenience, Not a Credible Alternative

By Bello Charles Kolawole (Ph.D)

The much-publicized Ibadan Declaration of April 25, 2026, has been presented as a bold step toward rescuing Nigeria’s democracy. But beneath the lofty rhetoric lies a familiar pattern of elite political maneuvering that Nigerians have seen time and again—one that offers little in terms of genuine transformation.

Convened under the leadership of Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde, the summit brought together prominent opposition figures including Atiku Abubakar, Peter Obi and Rabiu Kwankwaso. Their central proposition—to field a single presidential candidate for 2027—has been framed as a strategy to strengthen democracy. In reality, it raises serious concerns about internal democracy and the exclusion of emerging voices.

Coalitions are not inherently problematic. However, when they are driven by political survival rather than shared ideology or clear policy direction, they risk becoming mere platforms for recycling power among the same political elite. Nigerians are increasingly wary of such arrangements, especially when they involve actors who have, at various times, been part of the very system they now seek to “rescue.”

Equally troubling is the declaration’s alarmist claim that Nigeria is drifting toward a one-party state under the All Progressives Congress. This narrative in my himble opinion, lacks convincing evidence. Nigeria remains a multi-party democracy with active political contestation. Such claims appear more like political messaging designed to galvanize support than an accurate reflection of reality.

More concerning is the call for the removal of the INEC Chairman, Joash Ojo Amupitan. While no public institution is beyond criticism, the demand for outright removal, resignation or whatever —without due process or compelling evidence—sets a dangerous precedent. It risks politicizing electoral institutions and undermining public confidence in the democratic process the coalition seekbto governed. Even more worrisome is the subtle echo of ethnic and religious undertones that have historically shaped similar demands, threatening national unity. Nigerian are increasingly dissatisfied that the opposition parties ably led by Atiku and Northern cohort are towing ethnic and religious line of Islamic fundamentalist who doesn’t want the INEC Chairman simply because he’s a Christian and a minority Yoruba man in the north.

There is also the disturbing undertone of radical political expression linked to the summit, reminiscent of the infamous “Operation Wetie” era of the First Republic. Any suggestion—direct or implied—of extra-legal resistance or political incitement must be firmly rejected. Democracy cannot thrive in an atmosphere of intimidation or veiled threats of unrest.

The call for a review of the Electoral Act, 2026, while sounding progressive, appears selective and politically timed. Electoral reforms must be driven by national interest, not by the strategic calculations of political actors dissatisfied with the current framework.

Perhaps the most fundamental weakness of the Ibadan Declaration is its credibility gap. Many of its leading figures, such as Rotimi Amaechi, Rauf Aregbesola and David Mark—have occupied positions of power over the years. Their sudden alignment under a reformist banner raises legitimate questions among Nigerians who continue to grapple with the consequences of past governance failures.

What is noticeably absent from the declaration is a clear policy roadmap. Beyond power-sharing arrangements and institutional criticisms, there is little discussion of how this coalition intends to address the real challenges facing Nigerians—economic hardship, insecurity, unemployment, and governance deficits.

In the end, the Ibadan Declaration appears less like a blueprint for national renewal and more like a coalition of convenience. It reflects an attempt by the old political class to rebrand and reposition itself ahead of 2027.

Nigerians are no longer swayed by rhetoric alone. What they seek is credibility, clarity, and a genuine commitment to change. Until the opposition moves beyond elite bargaining and presents a people-centered vision, declarations such as this will struggle to gain public trust.

The task of rebuilding Nigeria requires more than political alliances—it demands sincerity, accountability, and a break from the past. On these counts, the Ibadan Declaration falls short.