Aug 29

Aug 29 Peter Obi Is Right About One Thing: Tinubu Should Make His Own Case

ABUJA, 26 August 2026 — Peter Obi's campaign has challenged President Bola Tinubu to face Nigerians directly, defend his record and explain why he should receive another four years instead of relying on ministers, governors, party officials and media aides.

The APC says Obi and Atiku Abubakar are grandstanding and should answer for their own records. That response contains a fair demand and avoids the central one. Every candidate should face scrutiny. The sitting president carries the additional burden of accounting for power already exercised.

Nigeria does not need a shouting contest presented as accountability. It needs direct, structured encounters in which claims can be checked, trade-offs are exposed and candidates cannot outsource difficult answers.

A president's team cannot replace the president

Modern government is too large for one person to explain every programme. Ministers should defend their portfolios, regulators should publish decisions and spokespeople should correct misinformation. Delegation is normal. Political accountability is different.

Tinubu personally sought the mandate, selected the broad direction of reform and now seeks renewal. He should explain what he intended, what changed, what failed and what he would do differently. A proxy can describe policy; only the candidate can own the political judgment behind it.

Direct engagement also prevents supporters from making contradictory promises on the president's behalf. When several surrogates offer different explanations for fuel prices, taxation or security, citizens cannot tell which position governs.

The first-term account should use a common scorecard

Campaigns select convenient statistics. Government may cite reserves, revenue, stock-market gains or projects approved. Opponents may cite food prices, debt service, insecurity or business closures. All can be true while creating very different pictures.

A useful scorecard should combine macroeconomic and household measures: inflation and real wages; employment quality; poverty; food and transport costs; electricity availability and price; school attendance; health outcomes; debt and interest burden; oil production and non-oil exports; security incidents and prosecution results.

Each claim should identify a baseline, date, source and whether the number is nominal, inflation-adjusted or per person. Announcing a larger naira budget during inflation is not the same as delivering more services. Announcing a percentage change without the starting level can also mislead.

Reform must be judged by design and distribution

Tinubu's defenders argue that fuel-subsidy removal and exchange-rate changes were necessary corrections. Critics point to hardship and weak protection. The debate should move beyond whether reform was painful; it should ask whether the burden and benefits were distributed fairly.

Government should show what subsidy savings funded, which projects were additional rather than previously budgeted and how transfers reached eligible households. It should explain leakages, delays and the future path for petrol, electricity and transport costs.

Opposition candidates must answer the same level of detail. If they would retain reform but manage proceeds differently, they should name programmes, costs and financing. If they would reverse a policy, they should explain the fiscal and currency consequences. “We would do it better” is not yet an alternative.

A debate needs rules stronger than television drama

A presidential debate should include equal time, published themes, independent moderators and opportunities for evidence-based follow-up. Candidates should submit source notes for factual claims, released immediately after the broadcast. An independent fact-check panel can then publish corrections without deciding political winners.

Questions should test decisions rather than invite speeches. What did you promise? What was delivered? What did it cost? Who benefited? What failed? What is the deadline? Candidates should be allowed brief rebuttals, but persistent interruption should not become a substitute for an answer.

One debate is insufficient. Separate sessions on the economy, security and institutions would produce more depth. Accessibility requires broadcasts on radio, television and digital platforms, interpretation and transcripts that citizens can search.

Obi must submit his own plans to the same test

It is possible to agree with Obi's demand while rejecting the idea that issuing it proves readiness to govern. He should publish costed proposals, implementation teams and realistic timelines. His record in Anambra is relevant, but a state record does not automatically answer federal questions.

Obi should explain how he would work with a potentially hostile legislature, manage the federation, fund security, stabilise power and protect vulnerable households. He should distinguish what a president can order from what requires legislation or state cooperation.

Atiku and every other candidate deserve the same scrutiny. Debate participation should not be limited to candidates selected by social-media popularity, though objective thresholds may be needed to keep sessions workable.

The public needs routine engagement, not campaign-season performance

Direct accountability should not begin when votes are needed. Regular presidential press conferences, unscripted questions and published follow-up answers would reduce the drama surrounding each appearance. Ministries should maintain dashboards that allow citizens to test claims between speeches.

The National Assembly can strengthen this culture through serious oversight hearings rather than partisan applause or ambush. Civil society and media organisations should coordinate questions and share data instead of allowing access to be traded for soft interviews.

Citizens also have a role: demanding evidence from preferred candidates, not only opponents. A supporter who excuses vagueness from one side weakens the accountability they want applied to the other.

Communication cannot repair performance, but silence can damage trust

No speech can make food cheaper or a road safe. Direct communication is not a substitute for results. It can, however, clarify priorities, acknowledge failure and give people a basis for judging the next promise.

Silence filled by surrogates makes policy appear evasive, especially when households are being asked to endure sacrifice. A president who believes difficult reform is working should be willing to defend it with evidence and answer the people carrying its cost.

Direct engagement should include the regions and groups least likely to attend a campaign rally. Questions from market associations, manufacturers, teachers, health workers, students, farmers, disability advocates and security-affected communities would test policy against daily experience. A town hall should not be packed only with party loyalists or reduced to testimonials.

Campaign organisers should publish how questioners are selected and preserve a complete recording. Edited clips reward theatrical moments and can remove context. A searchable transcript, source pack and written follow-up to unanswered questions would make the event useful after the broadcast ends.

TalkTalkNigeria's view: accept the debate and raise the standard

Tinubu should accept direct, substantive debates. The APC should insist that Obi, Atiku and other candidates meet the same evidentiary rules. That would convert a campaign taunt into a public service.

The most revealing answer will not be a rehearsed success list. It will be each candidate's account of failure: which judgment was wrong, what was learned and what safeguard prevents repetition. Leaders who cannot name a mistake are unlikely to correct one.

Nigerians deserve fewer arguments between proxies and more accountable choices between people seeking power. Let the candidates appear, let the numbers be checked and let voters decide.

That is a modest democratic standard, and every serious campaign should welcome it.

Sources: Guardian Nigeria on the 26 August challenge and APC response; TheCable on Obi's campaign launch and demand for public scrutiny; Channels Television's earlier interview on direct presidential communication.