Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has criticised President Bola Tinubu over the inauguration of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Campaign Council at the Banquet Hall of the Presidential Villa, Abuja, questioning the use of the seat of government for a partisan political event amid economic hardship and persistent insecurity.
Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), described the decision as a breach of public trust, arguing that the Presidential Villa belongs to all Nigerians and should not be treated as an extension of the ruling party.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, October 14, through his Director of Strategic Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice-president also criticised the expansion of Tinubu’s campaign council to accommodate influential politicians from other parties, arguing that political alliances cannot substitute for effective governance.
Atiku questioned why the ruling party chose the Presidential Villa when other venues were available in Abuja, describing the decision as an alleged abuse of public office.
Beyond the choice of venue, Atiku challenged the political significance attached to the enlarged campaign council, arguing that gathering governors, ministers and politicians from different parties would not automatically translate into improved living conditions for ordinary Nigerians.
He maintained that political alliances could neither make food more affordable nor restore household purchasing power, end kidnappings or provide answers to families whose relatives had been killed or abducted.
The criticism followed the inauguration of the APC Presidential Campaign Council on October 14 as the ruling party intensified preparations for the 2027 general election. The expanded council has attracted attention because of the participation of prominent political figures associated with parties other than the APC.
Among them are Federal Capital Territory Minister Nyesom Wike, a prominent Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) figure; Anambra State Governor Chukwuma Soludo of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA); and Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke, who won the 2026 governorship election on the platform of the Accord Party.
Their participation has brought renewed attention to the growing convergence of political interests around Tinubu’s re-election campaign, raising questions about the implications for opposition independence and Nigeria’s multiparty democracy.
Although cross-party cooperation is not inherently unlawful or undemocratic, the concentration of influential politicians from different parties within one president’s campaign structure could complicate the opposition’s ability to present a united and credible alternative. It may also raise questions about whether political parties can maintain clear ideological positions, hold the government accountable and offer voters genuinely competing policy choices.
The distinction is important: participation in a presidential campaign council does not automatically amount to formal defection from a political party, nor does it establish that a politician’s supporters will vote for the candidate being promoted. Nevertheless, when prominent figures from opposition parties work alongside the ruling party to advance a common presidential ambition, the development deserves scrutiny for its potential effects on political competition.
A healthy multiparty democracy depends on more than the existence of registered political parties. It also requires meaningful competition, independent opposition voices, clear policy alternatives and the ability of parties to hold those in power accountable. If political alliances become so extensive that established opposition figures participate in the ruling party’s campaign without clearly defined boundaries, voters may find it harder to distinguish between competing political platforms.
The development therefore raises a fundamental question: can a political system sustain effective democratic accountability when leading figures associated with different parties unite around one presidential campaign while their parties are expected to compete in other elections?
Atiku’s central argument is that the political strength displayed by an enlarged campaign structure should not be confused with demonstrated improvements in citizens’ welfare. Political endorsements may influence campaigns, but electoral victory is determined by votes cast and lawfully counted under the applicable electoral process.
The former Vice-President also drew attention to Nigeria’s economic difficulties and insecurity, arguing that these should command greater urgency than the recruitment of political allies for an election that remains months away.
Nigeria continues to face serious concerns over the cost of living, food affordability, employment and personal security. These pressures have made governance and the delivery of measurable results important issues in the emerging contest for public support ahead of 2027.
Atiku argued that political leaders should be judged by whether their policies improve living standards, strengthen household purchasing power and provide greater security for citizens rather than by the number of prominent names appearing on their campaign lists.
His criticism has added to the wider debate over the government’s performance and the role of political alliances in determining the direction of the next election.
The controversy also raises questions about the appropriate use of government facilities for partisan activities. Atiku has characterised the Presidential Villa event as an abuse of public office, but determining whether any specific law or regulation was breached would require examination of the applicable rules and the circumstances surrounding the event.
For Tinubu and the APC, the campaign council provides a platform to mobilise support for the President’s re-election bid. The administration and its supporters will ultimately have to make their case to voters on the basis of their policies, achievements and plans for the country.
The same standard applies to opposition parties. Criticising the government does not automatically establish an opposition party’s electoral strength, just as attracting influential political figures does not guarantee victory for the ruling party. Neither endorsements nor campaign-council membership can replace the verdict of the electorate.
As preparations for 2027 gather momentum, the debate extends beyond the choice of venue at the Presidential Villa. It touches on the boundaries between state institutions and partisan politics, the independence of opposition parties, the quality of democratic competition and the responsibility of political leaders to respond to citizens’ needs.
Ultimately, Nigerians need more than a gathering of political heavyweights. They need credible choices, accountable leadership and policies capable of addressing the economic and security challenges affecting their daily lives. The decisive test in 2027 will be whether political parties can persuade voters that their records, programmes and proposed solutions deserve support at the ballot box.
