By Nnaoke Ufere, PhD
In recent months, I’ve engaged in in-depth conversations with political scientists, strategists, and influential Northern elites about the shifting political landscape ahead of the 2027 presidential election. These discussions exposed a wide spectrum of strategies, some grounded in political pragmatism, others disturbingly detached from the urgent realities facing our nation.
At the core of many of these conversations is a long-term strategy to position a Northerner for the presidency in 2031, securing a full eight-year term. This assumes a Southerner remains in power until 2031, completing the South’s rotation from 2023 to 2031.
This strategy is influencing how key Northern stakeholders approach 2027, guiding their choice of a preferred Southern placeholder candidate and shaping their plans to balance regional interests with national stability, economic recovery, and social cohesion.
In this article, I will explore the advantages and drawbacks of the main strategic options currently under discussion among some influential Northern elites, along with a fourth option I propose as a national alternative.
Each option presents potential gains and risks that must be weighed with clarity, foresight, and a deep sense of national duty.
For context, understanding the electoral map is key to appreciating the stakes. The North, which comprises 19 of Nigeria’s 36 states, accounts for a substantial share of the national voter population. But it is not a political monolith; its zones, ethnic diversity, and voting blocs are varied and dynamic.
To win the presidency, a candidate must secure the majority of the popular vote and receive at least 25 percent of the vote in no fewer than 24 states, and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
As a result, without substantial support from the North, it is nearly impossible for any candidate to meet these high constitutional thresholds and be elected president.
This electoral reality gives the North not only considerable influence, but also a critical responsibility in determining how the strategic options currently under discussion will shape the outcome of the 2027 election and the road to 2031.
With this context in mind, the North now stands at a pivotal crossroads, confronting four distinct strategic options:
- The Tinubu Extension Gambit: A Strategic Mistake
One strategic option being discussed is to support Tinubu’s reelection in 2027, enabling him to complete a second term. This would, in turn, strengthen the North’s legitimate claim to the presidency in 2031, potentially securing a full eight-year cycle in power.
The underlying fear is that if another Southern candidate emerges victorious in 2027, the South could potentially retain power until 2035, disrupting the zoning balance and delaying the North’s return to power.
This strategy is not only morally tone-deaf, considering the widespread hunger, insecurity, and economic collapse caused by Tinubu’s policy blunders and misgovernance, but also politically reckless. It wrongly assumes that Nigerians are willing to endure four more years of hardship, starvation, and untimely deaths simply to honor a zoning arrangement that has delivered little in terms of real development or equity.
The reality on the ground is that ordinary Nigerians are not preoccupied with elite games of geopolitical zoning arithmetic. The obsession with rotation belongs to a political class increasingly out of touch with the daily struggles of the population. Ordinary Nigerians care about survival. They want to feed their families, live in safe communities, have shelter over their heads, send their children to school, access affordable healthcare, and find jobs with dignity.
Instead of using zoning to postpone meaningful leadership until 2031, the North should seize this moment to offer the leadership Nigerians urgently need. If a candidate like Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, who is seasoned in problem-solving, bold in vision, pragmatic in execution, deeply connected to the people, and firmly grounded in grassroots realities, or any other equally capable leader, can inspire broad national support, then why wait? The urgency of this moment demands bold, decisive leadership.
And if such a leader, whether from the North or South, defeats Tinubu in 2027 and delivers real progress for Nigerians, why should an outdated zoning arrangement block the will of the people beyond 2031? Nigerians are no longer interested in elite power-sharing games. What they demand and deserve is performance, accountability, and leadership that puts the nation first.
Therefore, the journey to 2031 must begin in 2027. It should not be driven by the identity politics of zoning, but by a commitment to leadership that is ready, capable, and focused on delivering real progress for the Nigerian people now, not later.
- The Jonathan Option: A Hollow Compromise
A second option tabled for consideration by some Northern elites offers a different, seemingly more conciliatory approach. They suggest supporting a different Southern candidate in 2027, preferably former President Goodluck Jonathan, to complete the remaining four years of the Southern zoning arrangement.
Since Jonathan has already served one full term, the Constitution only allows him to serve one more term. This makes him, in their view, the ideal transitional figure: a Southern president with a fixed non-renewable four-year term, after which the North can justifiably reclaim the presidency in 2031, according to the zoning scheme.
On the surface, this appears pragmatic. It acknowledges the South’s claim to a full two-term presidency while giving the North a clear, time-bound path to power in the next cycle. It’s seen as a compromise, an elegant solution that satisfies zoning politics and restores elite equilibrium.
But this logic is deeply flawed, reckless and dangerous.
First, it reduces national leadership to a stopgap measure, an elite calculation to manage rotation rather than a response to our nation’s urgent need for bold, visionary governance. It assumes voters will accept a placeholder president whose mandate is defined more by an expiration date than by a plan to rescue the nation.
With all due respect, Jonathan is not just ill-equipped to lead in a time of national crisis; he has already proven it. His tenure as president was marked by widespread corruption, weak governance, and a troubling absence of strategic direction.
At a time when the nation needed firm, decisive and action-oriented leadership, Jonathan consistently displayed indecision, particularly in the face of mounting national security threats such as the rise of Boko Haram. His administration failed to act with urgency or coherence, allowing insurgency and instability to spiral out of control.
Moreover, his presidency was engulfed in grand corruption scandals that not only crippled public trust but drained critical national resources. Rather than confronting the rot within his administration, Jonathan often appeared detached, unwilling or unable to hold those around him accountable.
His leadership lacked political courage, policy depth, and the reformist energy needed to steer our nation through crisis. Elevating him again as a transitional figure would not only repeat past mistakes; it would signal to Nigerians that competence and integrity are optional in moments of national urgency.
Right from day one, Jonathan will be a lame duck, a president with no political capital, no mandate for bold reforms, and no real incentive to challenge the status quo. His limited four-year term, will strip him of both urgency and authority. Every decision will be second-guessed, every policy viewed through the lens of elite compromise rather than national interest.
Worse, power brokers will begin jockeying for 2031 from the moment he takes office, turning his presidency into a transitional holding pattern rather than a vehicle for meaningful change. In a time of national crisis, Nigeria cannot afford a symbolic caretaker; it needs a transformative leader with the vision, time, and mandate to govern decisively.
Finally, it sends a deeply damaging message to a nation hungry for real change—that leadership is not earned through competence, credibility, and public trust, but negotiated through backroom deals and elite horse-trading. This mindset is precisely what has driven our nation to the edge of collapse. The so-called Jonathan option should not just be rejected, it must be buried before it takes root.
- The Peter Obi Option: A Token Deal
Another option floated is a cynical political maneuver: propping up Peter Obi as a token Southern president, backed by Northern elites, on the condition that he steps down in 2031 for a Northern vice president.
The option, reportedly involving a demand that Obi “sign in blood,” is a thinly veiled attempt to pacify the Southeast with symbolic power while ensuring that true control reverts to the North after just four years. It is not a strategy for reform or recovery, it is a calculated move to appease the Southeast, under the façade of inclusivity.
Beyond the ethical flaws of this arrangement lies an even more serious concern. As many critics and political observers have consistently pointed out, Peter Obi, despite his popularity, lacks political dexterity, strategic depth, problem-solving skills, and political competence required to lead a nation in deep crisis. His appeal is largely built on populist slogans, but that does not translate into the kind of seasoned, crisis-tested leadership Nigeria desperately needs.
Moreover, Obi often struggles with the kind of political flexibility and willingness to engage in the give-and-take necessary for forging broad national consensus. His approach, while principled, can at times lack the pragmatism required to navigate our nation’s complex political system and unite diverse interests around a common vision.
In our deeply polarized environment, there is a genuine risk that his stopgap presidency could be viewed as a regional concession to the Southeast, branding him a grievance-settlement president and potentially undermining his legitimacy and weakening national unity.
Positioning Obi as a transitional or placeholder president, similar to the Jonathan option, exposes the weakness of this strategy. It prioritizes zoning over merit, undermines democracy, and risks further instability by placing a weak, temporary leader in charge at a time when Nigeria needs bold, decisive leadership.
The good news is that not all Northern elites support these three strategic options, and from my discussions, it’s clear that none of them has gained broad consensus.
- The Meritocratic Option
There is, however, a fourth and far more credible path that Northern elites, and indeed every region of the country, must begin to take seriously but have so far largely ignored. That path involves fielding a strong, competent, and nationally appealing candidate in 2027 irrespective of zonal status.
If the North or South can produce a leader, excluding Tinubu or anyone tied to his failed leadership, who can unite the country, ensure security, grow the economy, reduce inflation, create jobs, provide steady and affordable electricity, modernize our infrastructure and education systems, empower states and local governments to operate autonomously in economic and security matters, and tackle corruption and looting head-on, Nigerians will vote for them regardless of their zone or region.
Zoning holds no value in the face of hunger, insecurity, joblessness, and collapsing public services. What matters is performance, not origin. Nigerians aren’t asking whose turn it is. They’re asking who can lead with results and restore hope. Meritocracy must defeat zoning mediocrity in 2027 and beyond.
A Call for Rethinking Rotational Presidency
In sum, what is at stake in 2027 and beyond is not merely the question of power rotation, but the future of a nation striving to rebuild trust, restore dignity and humanity to millions of long-suffering citizens, and reclaim a shared national purpose. Clinging to political rotation at the cost of national progress is not strategy; it is failure.
The 2027 election must not become another exercise in regional entitlement. It should be a reckoning, a clear verdict on years of failed leadership, economic decline, and deepening public despair under Tinubu. Nigeria does not need a president who checks zoning boxes, but one who breaks them with vision, competence, and courage.
The urgent task is to defeat Tinubu and replace him with a leader capable of confronting Nigeria’s deepening crisis, restoring dignity to our people, and ending the hardship and hopelessness that have defined the Buhari-Tinubu era.
As the Hausa proverb says, Jiki Magayi—the body bears the consequences of pain. Today, Nigeria wears its suffering openly: in starvation, insecurity, poverty, and disillusionment. This visible agony demands not just change, but bold, compassionate leadership committed to healing the nation and securing a future filled with hope and dignity.
