 |
| Dele Alake |
In the intensifying run-up to Nigeria’s 2027 general elections, a seemingly minor question of nomenclature has become a flashpoint for deeper arguments about respect for institutions, political maturity and the tone of opposition. On Monday, the All Progressives Congress Presidential Campaign Council (APC PCC), through its spokesperson and Minister of Solid Minerals Development Dele Alake, formally accused former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar of allowing “political animosity and uncontrollable ambition” to erode the statesmanship expected of a former occupant of high office.
The core of the complaint is Atiku’s repeated public references to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu simply as “Bola” rather than “President Tinubu” or a similarly formal title. Alake’s statement framed this as a failure of decorum by the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, arguing that a higher standard of “decency and deference to constituted authorities” is required of someone who once served as vice-president and now seeks the nation’s highest office again.
“Since Alhaji Atiku lost the last presidential election, he has allowed political animosity and uncontrollable ambition to rob him of the statesmanship that should guide his public conduct and utterances,” the statement read in part. It continued that Atiku had chosen “to set himself up as a model of politician the younger generation of political actors should never aspire to be like.”
RELATED
Yet the APC PCC simultaneously instructed its own leaders, spokespersons, members and support groups to continue according Atiku the respect due to a former vice-president and current presidential candidate. The campaign, Alake emphasised, would focus on “issues important to Nigerians,” Tinubu’s record in office, and the administration’s efforts to move the country “from reforms to prosperity” as the president seeks a second term.
A Pattern, Not an Isolated Slip
This is not a sudden development. References to Tinubu by first name have drawn criticism for weeks. In mid-September, during a press conference in which Atiku urged the government to adopt measures to lower petrol prices (and offered that Tinubu could rename and claim credit for the idea), the former vice-president repeatedly used “Bola.” Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communication Sunday Dare called it “the height of insolence” and evidence of “unbridled desperation.” Aviation Minister Festus Keyamo described the continuous first-name references as “very disrespectful and discourteous,” stressing that the office of the president deserves dignity regardless of political differences.
The controversy sharpened after Atiku’s October 1 Independence Day address marking Nigeria’s 66th anniversary. In that speech, delivered at ADC headquarters in Abuja, he repeatedly referred to the president as “Bola” while criticising the cost-of-living crisis, questioning the administration’s claims of a shift to “prosperity,” and labelling certain government promises—particularly on lower transport fares—as a “Yahoo Yahoo” pledge. He also challenged the handling of multiple concurrent budgets and broader economic outcomes. @atiku
Reactions crossed party lines. Akin Osuntokun, a former presidential spokesman and director-general of Peter Obi’s 2023 campaign, publicly objected.
While affirming Atiku’s right to sharp criticism, Osuntokun called the repeated use of “Bola” a “needless display of disrespect” and “an affront to the office of the President.” He offered a telling hypothetical: imagine a former vice-president addressing a sitting president throughout a national address simply as “Segun” or “Muhammadu.” The rudeness, he said, would be unmistakable.
Lagos State APC also weighed in, arguing that the practice concerned the dignity of national institutions more than personal familiarity. Political disagreement, the chapter stated, “does not confer a licence for deliberate discourtesy.”
The Counter-Argument: Name Versus Office
Atiku’s camp has pushed back firmly, rejecting any suggestion of impropriety. Media aides Paul Ibe and Phrank Shaibu have argued that “Bola is his name” and that no Nigerian law requires citizens—or political opponents—to prefix every reference with “President,” “His Excellency” or “Mr President.” They have cited constitutional provisions on freedom of expression and the requirement that offences must be defined in written law. Ibe at one point offered a sarcastic “apology” and floated the alternative of “Amoda,” a name long associated with Tinubu in some political discourse, while noting ongoing controversies around documentation and background.
Shaibu went further, describing accusations of disrespect as “wretched illiteracy” and insisting that a leader whose policies have imposed hardship on millions should simply be addressed by name. The broader point from the ADC side is that focusing on titles distracts from substantive issues: the cost of living, insecurity, energy prices and what Atiku portrays as unfulfilled or hastily announced relief measures.
This defence frames the debate as one between republican equality and hierarchical protocol. In a democracy, the argument runs, the president is an elected public servant, not an emperor. Protocol, critics of Atiku counter, exists precisely because the office transcends the individual; stripping away formal address in formal settings risks normalising a corrosive tone.
Ambition, History and the 2027 Race
The exchange sits within a long, complex political relationship. Atiku Abubakar, who served as vice-president under Olusegun Obasanjo from 1999 to 2007, is making what he has described as his final presidential bid. He is contesting on the ADC platform with former Rivers State governor and transportation minister Rotimi Amaechi as running mate. President Tinubu, seeking re-election under the APC with Vice-President Kashim Shettima, heads a crowded field that also includes Peter Obi (on the Nigeria Democratic Congress ticket with Rabiu Kwankwaso).
Atiku has repeatedly characterised the Tinubu administration in harsh terms—calling aspects of its performance “Yahoo Yahoo” (a colloquial reference to online fraud and empty promises) and questioning credentials and records. The APC, for its part, portrays these attacks as the product of personal animosity after successive electoral defeats rather than principled opposition.
Dele Alake himself is no newcomer to these battles. A long-time associate of Tinubu dating back to the Lagos governorship years, a veteran journalist, and now a cabinet minister, Alake has defended the president on multiple fronts over the years, including questions of identity and educational records. His dual role as minister and campaign spokesperson underscores the fusion of government and party messaging in the current cycle.
The episode also highlights a recurring tension in Nigerian politics: how far opposition figures can go in personalising criticism without appearing to diminish the institutions they seek to lead. Similar debates have arisen in other democracies over the balance between robust accountability and institutional respect. In Nigeria’s highly charged, personality-driven environment—where ethnic, regional and generational factors already heighten stakes—the first-name controversy risks becoming a proxy for larger questions of temperament and fitness for office.
RECOMMENDED ◼︎▶︎ Behind the Badge: Delta CP Erale Highlights the Critical Role of Police Families as POWA Pays Courtesy Visit in Asaba
What It Signals for the Campaign Trail
Alake’s statement is carefully calibrated. By condemning the form of address while instructing APC actors to maintain courtesies toward Atiku, the party positions itself as the side of progressive ideals and traditional African values of respect. It seeks to occupy the high ground of issues-based campaigning even as it prosecutes a sharp personal critique.
For Atiku, the episode may reinforce his image among supporters as an uncompromising critic unwilling to genuflect before power. Yet it also hands opponents material to question whether a candidate who treats the current occupant of the office with such familiarity would elevate the presidency if elected.
As the 2027 race gathers pace, with campaigns already focusing on economic hardship, reforms and competing visions of prosperity, this dispute over a first name is unlikely to remain isolated. It reflects deeper struggles over narrative control: who defines respect, who sets the tone of public discourse, and whether Nigerians prioritise protocol or policy outcomes when they next go to the polls.
In the end, the “Bola” controversy is less about four letters than about the standards political actors demand of one another—and of themselves—when the highest stakes are in play. Both sides claim the mantle of statesmanship. Voters will ultimately decide which claim holds.
Samuel O. Sulaimon is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of Naijapiz. He covers News, Sports, Finance, Faiths, Education, Technology.
Post a Comment