By Abraham Amah
Politics rarely unfolds on the surface. Its deepest battles are often waged indirectly, through proxies, symbols, and calculated distractions. What Nigeria is presently witnessing in the sustained political storm around the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory is not an isolated disagreement over governance style or administrative choices. It is a strategic attempt to weaken the principal by attacking the ally. At its core, this unfolding drama is less about Abuja and more about President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The current effort to politically discredit President Tinubu has assumed a multilateral character. It is no longer driven by a single opposition tendency but by converging interests that share little in common beyond grievance and exclusion. One front of this convergence has materialized under the banner of a coalition that presents itself as an alternative platform. Yet a closer examination reveals that this grouping is not united by ideas, policy clarity, or a coherent national vision. Rather, it is bound together by dissatisfaction, personal injury, and unresolved political loss.
Those who parade themselves as the new face of opposition are, in truth, familiar actors with long political histories that inspire more questions than confidence. Their records do not reflect a transformative legacy or a capacity for national reinvention. This reality makes it difficult to interpret their sudden unity as anything other than an alliance of aggrieved interests seeking relevance through political disruption rather than democratic persuasion.
Alongside this coalition effort is a more sophisticated maneuver. It is the deliberate targeting of Nyesom Wike, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory. This is not accidental. In political arithmetic, Wike represents a substantial pillar within the broader coalition that produced the Tinubu presidency. His influence cuts across the South South, the South East, and significant political networks beyond these regions. To weaken Wike is to weaken a considerable portion of President Tinubu’s political support base. The calculation is simple and cold. Remove the ally and the principal becomes exposed.
This explains why the attacks on the FCT minister have been relentless and emotionally charged. They are designed to provoke isolation, induce internal fractures, and compel the President into difficult political choices. However, this strategy rests on a fundamental misreading of the man at the center of power. President Tinubu is not unfamiliar with political plots. He is a student of power, shaped by decades of contestation, negotiation, and survival within Nigeria’s complex political terrain. He understands that leadership is not sustained by panic or appeasement but by clarity, loyalty, and strategic patience.
Those who imagine that President Tinubu will sacrifice a key political ally to satisfy orchestrated outrage fail to appreciate the deeper logic of power. Politics is not governed by noise but by structure. It is not driven by momentary sentiment but by long term calculation. Tinubu knows that once a leader begins to abandon allies under pressure, authority itself begins to dissolve.
The suggestion, in some quarters, that Governor Siminalayi Fubara represents a political alternative capable of replacing Nyesom Wike within the national power equation further exposes the superficiality of the argument. Governance, especially at the highest levels, is not an apprenticeship program. It demands political maturity, institutional memory, and the ability to navigate crises without external tutelage. Comparing a relatively new political actor to a seasoned political operator is not only unrealistic but intellectually dishonest. One is still learning the alphabet of power. The other has long mastered its language.
Beyond individuals, this moment invites a broader philosophical reflection on Nigerian politics. Coalitions built on resentment rarely endure. Power pursued through sabotage often collapses under its own weight. History teaches that nations do not progress when political actors substitute grievance for vision and conspiracy for competence. What endures is not the loudness of opposition but the depth of preparation and the discipline of leadership.
In the final analysis, the storm around the Federal Capital Territory is a mirror reflecting a larger struggle for relevance and survival within Nigeria’s political elite. It is a test of political maturity for all involved. For President Tinubu, it is a familiar terrain, one he has navigated before. For his critics, it may yet become a lesson in the limits of political engineering.
Power, after all, is not merely seized. It is sustained through experience, alliances, and an unspoken understanding of when to stand firm and when to yield. Those who seek to weaken the principal by targeting the ally may soon discover that they have underestimated both.
