Human rights lawyer and United States Secretary of State Awardee on International Religious Freedom, Kola Alapinni, has cautioned against interpreting insecurity, vote-buying, and alleged influence over election logistics as evidence that the outcome of the 2027 presidential election has already been determined. Alapinni made this statement in response to The Economist's assessment of factors that could shape the 2027 election. He argued that current political conditions should not be automatically projected onto the 2027 election outcome.
The Economist, in an October 1 report, identified incumbency, opposition fragmentation, religion, voter turnout, and political cynicism as factors that could work in President Bola Tinubu's favour despite dissatisfaction with his administration. However, Alapinni disagreed with this assessment, stating that it turned current political conditions into assumptions about the eventual outcome of the election. He emphasized that the political dynamics of the 2023 election should not automatically be projected onto 2027.
Alapinni particularly questioned The Economist's assessment that opposition fragmentation could provide a structural advantage for the incumbent. While acknowledging that the inability of major opposition figures to form a single ticket could benefit the ruling party, he noted that the political situation remained fluid ahead of the election. Alapinni argued that The Economist's error was to treat the absence of a coalition today as proof that none could be formed by January.
The lawyer also disputed the suggestion that religious identity would necessarily determine voting patterns in the North and Middle Belt. He cited The Economist's reference to polling by SBM Intelligence, which showed Tinubu trailing Peter Obi and Atiku Abubakar in Borno. Alapinni argued that insecurity and economic hardship could instead influence voter behaviour. He also noted that developments in the Middle Belt, particularly in Plateau and Benue states, required a more nuanced assessment than one based largely on religious identity.
Alapinni further rejected the argument that political cynicism would necessarily result in voter apathy. He argued that Nigerians affected by insecurity, economic hardship, and poor public services could see the election as an opportunity to express their dissatisfaction. Alapinni also identified electricity supply as an issue that could shape voters' assessment of the administration. He questioned reported spending on solar power infrastructure at the Presidential Villa while many households and businesses continued to rely on generators or contend with unreliable electricity.
However, Alapinni acknowledged some of The Economist's arguments, particularly its assessment of the advantages enjoyed by incumbents. He agreed that ruling parties could benefit from political machinery, financial resources, and voter mobilisation, while opposition fragmentation could make it more difficult for challengers to consolidate their support. Alapinni also acknowledged that insecurity and vote-buying could affect the conduct of the 2027 election but cautioned against treating such risks as evidence that the outcome had already been determined.
Alapinni concluded that incumbency remained an advantage but should not be confused with public consent. He maintained that the eventual outcome would depend in significant part on whether Nigerians were able to participate in the election and exercise their franchise. Alapinni emphasized that neither camp should read the current situation as a guarantee of victory, adding that a week was a long time in politics.
Key points
- Human rights lawyer Kola Alapinni cautions against assuming the 2027 presidential election outcome is already decided.
- Alapinni disputes The Economist's assessment of factors that could shape the 2027 election.
- The lawyer emphasizes that incumbency is an advantage but should not be confused with public consent.
