Atiku as ADC National Leader Makes Sense — But the Presidential Ticket Is a Different Question

The emergence of Atiku Abubakar as national leader of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) sits comfortably within Nigeria’s political logic. Atiku is a seasoned political organiser whose career has spanned party building, coalition management, and national campaigns across decades. In a system where opposition parties often struggle with internal coherence, his presence offers structure, access, and institutional discipline. As a national leader, Atiku can provide ideological direction and arbitration without being consumed by the intensity of electoral contests.

However, national party leadership and presidential candidacy are not synonymous roles, even though Nigerian politics often blurs the line between the two. Party leadership is fundamentally about internal consolidation: managing interests, stabilising factions, and creating an operational platform. Presidential candidacy, by contrast, is outward-facing and emotionally driven. It requires a figure who not only understands governance but also embodies public yearning for change. Conflating these responsibilities risks weakening both.

Atiku’s repeated presidential bids have, over time, reshaped public perception of his political utility. While his experience remains unquestioned, electoral momentum is not infinite. Each successive run has produced diminishing emotional engagement, particularly among younger voters and urban professionals who now dominate political discourse. For many Nigerians, Atiku has come to represent continuity with an older political era, one defined more by negotiation within elite circles than by grassroots enthusiasm.

This is where Peter Obi enters the conversation as a more viable presidential standard-bearer. Obi’s political appeal is not rooted in longevity or deep party machinery but in perceived personal discipline, fiscal restraint, and emotional credibility. His 2023 outing demonstrated that he could mobilise voters without traditional structures, tapping into widespread dissatisfaction and converting it into electoral participation. That constituency remains politically relevant and largely unclaimed.

Beyond raw numbers, Obi represents a tonal shift in opposition politics. In an environment shaped by economic hardship and distrust of political elites, symbolism matters. Obi’s relatively austere public persona and consistent messaging offer a sharper contrast to the incumbent political order. Unlike Atiku, whose career invites comparisons with past administrations, Obi presents himself as a break from familiar patterns, an asset in an election defined by protest sentiment and generational transition.

Crucially, Obi should not seek to contest or occupy the party leadership role within ADC. Doing so would undermine the very appeal that makes him electorally attractive. Party leadership is inherently transactional, involving compromise and internal bargaining that could erode his reformist image. His strength lies in remaining above internal power struggles, focused on public engagement rather than organisational control.

Ultimately, the opposition’s challenge is not about choosing between Atiku and Obi but about assigning them to roles that maximise their strengths. Atiku’s value lies in stabilising and guiding the party; Obi’s lies in carrying the electoral message to the public. If ADC can maintain this distinction, it stands a better chance of presenting a credible alternative in 2027. If not, it risks repeating the familiar cycle of ambition overriding strategy.