₦airaland Forum

Igbophobia:
If you will vote Tinubu in the election, I'd like to know your reason.

The question, “Will you vote for Tinubu?”is not necessarily the most relevant question to ask. Tinubu is the incumbent President; the more pertinent question is: “Do you want Tinubu to be replaced as President? If so, why, and who do you believe is a better alternative?”

The burden of making a compelling case for a change of government should rest primarily on those advocating for a change. They must articulate why they believe Tinubu's administration has failed the country, particularly in its management of the economy, governance and politics. More importantly, they must demonstrate why their preferred candidate or candidates offer a more credible, practical and convincing alternative.

It is not enough to simply express dissatisfaction with the incumbent. Opposition to Tinubu must be accompanied by a reasoned critique of his record, a clear articulation of what needs to change, and a persuasive explanation of how the proposed alternative intends to deliver that change.

Those who favour Tinubu's continued presidency, on the other hand, are essentially making the case for continuity. Their position is that his administration should be given another opportunity to consolidate its policies and programmes. They need not approach the debate from the same starting point as those demanding a change of government.

Ultimately, the debate should move beyond the simplistic question of whether one likes or dislikes Tinubu. It should be about performance, policy outcomes, leadership alternatives and the comparative merits of continuity versus change.

If you believe the incumbent should be replaced, make the case for why, and show us why the alternative deserves the mandate.

Igbophobia:
Don't you see that there are no normal humans supporting Tinubu except those of you paid 30k a month?

So, all the governors, APC stakeholders, and party members are surviving on ₦30,000 a month? Really? Let’s be serious! Power is not served à la carte—not in Nigeria, not anywhere in the world. It takes strategy, alliances, negotiation, and political intelligence. If you think insulting everyone who disagrees with you will strengthen your principal’s case, you’re doing him more harm than good. Instead of making a compelling argument, you come across as weak, unprepared, and out of your depth.

Politics is not about throwing insults; it’s about strategy, persuasion, and results. Bring facts, make a strong case, and stop mistaking aggression for political competence. Sad!

Racoon:
Ordinarily, the citizens wouldnt have to do that if good governance is provide. However, in the case of Tinubu, he not only failed woefully but rather choose to grandstand about it as if that is now the norm.

This makes it a sacred duty and role of an sane responsible Nigeria to demand and see to it that a failure is not rewarded with another mandate.

The seller is cashing out on your hatred for Tinubu. He will make his millions from the buyers and probably still vote Tinubu. Politics is a Chess game, .

Igbophobia:
I think this is poor campaign strategy: that only paid shills are the ones supporting Tinubu on Nairaland.

Just as ONLY political thugs are supporters he has on the streets.

Can't the WhatsApp group coordinator of the data boys at least ask them to create new accounts so that we don't know they're paid per post shills?

S it is your assumption that all those that voted in the recent by election won by APC recently are all data boys. Are you guys really serious about the election at all or just catching cruise?

denitro:
Tinubu’s Listed “Achievements” Are Not Achievements: The Difference Between Policy Changes and Actual Achievements. Before judging the list of President Tinubu’s achievements, we need to understand an important difference: a policy change is something a government decides to do; an achievement is the positive result that comes from it.

Fuel Subsidy Removal — (NOT AN ACHIEVEMENT)

Removing the fuel subsidy was a policy change, not an achievement by itself.

The argument for removing it was that government would save money, reduce borrowing and use the money for development. Therefore, the achievement should be measured by whether those promised benefits actually occurred.

At the same time, Nigerians experienced much higher fuel and transportation costs. So the correct assessment must look at both the savings and the costs, rather than simply calling subsidy removal an achievement.

Foreign Exchange Unification — (NOT AN ACHIEVEMENT)

Unifying the foreign-exchange market was a policy change, not an achievement.

Record High Non-Oil Revenue — (NOT NECESSARILY AN ACHIEVEMENT)

Government collecting more naira is not automatically an achievement.

Reduced Debt-Service-to-Revenue Ratio — (NOT AN ACHIEVEMENT BY ITSELF)

A lower debt-service-to-revenue ratio is a financial indicator, not necessarily an achievement.

Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway — (NOT A NEW ACHIEVEMENT)

The highway is a major infrastructure project, but the idea and planning existed before Tinubu's administration.

[b]Sokoto-Badagry Road — (NOT A NEW ACHIEVEMENT)[/b]The Sokoto-Badagry corridor is also based on a much older infrastructure concept.Reviving or advancing the project can be credited to the current administration as an action, but the achievement will ultimately be measured by whether the road is completed and delivers the expected economic benefits.

[b]Kano-Maradi Railway — (NOT A NEW ACHIEVEMENT)[/b]The railway project was already initiated under the previous administration.Therefore, continuing or advancing it can be credited to the current government, but it should not be presented as though the entire project originated under Tinubu.The actual achievement will be the completed and functioning railway.

[b]NELFUND Student Loans — (NOT AN ACHIEVEMENT BY ITSELF)[/b]Creating the student-loan scheme is a policy initiative.The real achievement would be if more students can complete their education, obtain employment and improve their incomes without being trapped by unsustainable debt.

[b]3 Million Technical Talents (3MTT) — (NOT AN ACHIEVEMENT BY ITSELF)[/b]A target of training three million people is not the same as actually achieving three million successful careers.The real achievement should be measured by how many people are properly trained, employed, earning income, creating businesses or participating in the technology industry.

[b]iDICE Fund — (NOT AN ACHIEVEMENT BY ITSELF)[/b]Creating a fund for digital and creative businesses is a government programme.
The achievement would be the number of businesses that become successful, jobs created, income generated and products or services exported.


[b]Local Refining — (NOT ENTIRELY A GOVERNMENT ACHIEVEMENT)[/b]The Dangote Refinery is a private-sector project, not a refinery built by the Tinubu government.Its operation during Tinubu's presidency can be part of the administration's economic environment, but it should not be presented as though the government constructed it.

[b]CNG Programme — (NOT AN ACHIEVEMENT BY ITSELF)[/b]The CNG programme was introduced partly to deal with the transportation consequences of higher petrol prices following subsidy removal.Therefore, launching CNG is a response/policy measure.

That distinction is important because a government can take many actions without all of those actions becoming achievements.

This isn’t an objective assessment of Tinubu’s record—it’s a rigged game where the rules are written so that NOTHING can ever count as an achievement.**it defines “achievement” so narrowly that Tinubu could do something objectively measurable and it still wouldn't count.** That isn't an honest test of performance—it is a way of deciding the verdict first and then finding a definition to justify it.

It starts with a reasonable statement: a policy is not automatically an achievement. Absolutely. But then it quietly turns that into something else: **unless a policy completely solves the problem it was designed to address, it isn't an achievement.** That's nonsense. Governments are judged by measurable improvements, not by whether they magically eliminate every problem overnight.

Take **fuel-subsidy removal and FX reform**. Yes, they were policy decisions. So what? The question is what happened because of them. The IMF says the reforms reduced fiscal vulnerabilities, improved FX-market functioning, rebuilt external buffers and helped restore access to international capital markets. You can—and should—criticise the pain Nigerians experienced. But to say there was therefore **“no achievement”** is simply not credible. Two things can be true at once: a reform can produce gains AND impose serious costs.

Then we get to **debt service and revenue**. We're told that a lower debt-service-to-revenue ratio is “not an achievement by itself.” Fine. But Nigeria's ratio fell dramatically—from around 100% in 2022 to below 40% in 2024, according to the World Bank. That's not a speech. That's not a promise. **That's a measurable change in the numbers.** Nigeria still has a debt problem? Absolutely. But apparently, in this argument, an improvement doesn't count unless the entire problem disappears. That's not analysis. That's an impossible standard.

The same trick is used with infrastructure. **Kano–Maradi, Lagos–Calabar, Sokoto–Badagry**—because an idea existed before Tinubu, we're apparently supposed to pretend that financing, reviving, constructing or advancing it under his administration doesn't count. Seriously? By that logic, no president can ever claim credit for completing an inherited project. **Governments inherit projects. Governments finish projects. Both the inheritance and the execution can be verified.** Tinubu didn't invent these projects—and nobody should claim he did—but neither should his critics pretend his administration's actions don't exist.

And THAT is the real weakness here. The definition of “achievement” keeps changing whenever the evidence becomes inconvenient. Subsidy reform? Not enough. More revenue? Not enough. Lower debt-service burden? Not enough. Better FX functioning? Not enough. Student loans? Not enough. Infrastructure? Not enough. Higher oil production? “Not the whole story.” Security operations? Not enough. **What would actually count?** If the answer is “nothing until Nigeria has solved poverty, insecurity, inflation, food prices and debt,” then just say that. But don't dress a political argument up as objective measurement.

**Judge Tinubu. Absolutely. Attack the failures. Quantify the costs. Ask who benefited and who didn't. Demand results. But apply the SAME standard to the achievements.** Nigeria can have serious poverty and food insecurity AND experience genuine macroeconomic improvement. Both can be true. The honest debate is not “Tinubu achieved everything” versus “Tinubu achieved nothing.” **The honest debate is what changed, by how much, at what cost, and who benefited.** Anything else is just moving the goalposts until the answer you wanted appears.

Let’s make one thing VERY clear: when we talk about understanding the indigenous people of Lagos, we are talking about **Yorùbá—the language, culture and heritage of the Lagos/Eko people.** That should not be controversial. It’s a fact.

Now, nobody is saying every Lagosian must speak Yorùbá. Nobody is saying you must be Yorùbá to hold public office. Lagos is cosmopolitan—one of the greatest, most diverse cities anywhere. But if you want to GOVERN Lagos, represent Lagos, lead Lagos, then making a serious effort to learn the indigenous language should be a **BIG sign of respect**.

Look at Wales. The Prince of Wales engages with Welsh language and culture because language carries history, identity and belonging. It doesn't exclude anybody. It shows respect. Why should Lagos be any different? You don't have to be born into a culture to respect it. But if you want the mandate of its people, why NOT learn their language? Yorùbá is not just words. It opens the door to the history, humour, traditions, worldview and identity of Lagos. **It matters. A lot.**

And let’s be absolutely clear about the standard: **this is NOT about ethnicity. It is NOT about exclusion. It is NOT about saying who can or cannot govern Lagos. It is about cultural literacy, respect and making the effort to understand the people you want to lead.** If you want to lead Lagos, learn Lagos. And learning its language is a very good place to start.

This Economist article makes a BIG leap. It tells us Nigerians “dislike” President Tinubu and then jumps to the idea that they may re-elect him anyway. But where is the evidence? Disliking a government does NOT automatically mean voters will stay home, vote for the opposition, or return the incumbent. Those are very different things.

Then come the assumptions: religion, region, low turnout, incumbency, opposition weakness. Maybe these factors matter—but “maybe” is not evidence. You cannot take a possibility, repeat it several times, and suddenly present it as an explanation of what millions of Nigerians will do.

The claim that some Nigerians have such low expectations of government that they will tolerate poor performance is especially questionable. That is a HUGE assumption about Nigerian voters. Are we really saying dissatisfaction with poverty, insecurity and economic hardship somehow makes people less likely to demand change? That needs evidence—not anecdotes dressed up as analysis.

And the turnout argument cuts both ways. If dissatisfied voters stay home, that could help an incumbent. But if dissatisfaction mobilises voters against the government, it could have the opposite effect. Until we have credible evidence showing which way this is moving, nobody should pretend the outcome is already written.

The bottom line: **show the polling, show the voting intentions, show the turnout data, show the regional evidence.** Don't start with “Nigerians dislike him” and then fill the rest of the argument with assumptions about why they will supposedly vote for him anyway. Nigerians will decide Nigeria's 2027 election—not The Economist.