2027: Atiku’s kitchen-Sink Strategy Betrays Crude Populism

Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), is adopting a kitchen-sink approach to next year’s presidential race. A “kitchen-sink approach” involves throwing everything at a problem regardless of what works or doesn’t. That’s precisely what Atiku is doing by promising to tackle every conceivable vexed issue if he becomes president next year. Recently, he published a “12-point policy commitment”. Reading through the list, one gets the impression that Atiku simply gathered all the problems that would resonate with Nigerians, and then boldly pledged: “Leave them with me. I’ll tackle everything if you make me your president.” For a politician who promised to do only one term as president, if elected, one would expect a more focused and deliverable agenda, but Atiku opted for crude populism or grandstanding!

Before we come to Atiku’s maximalist and complex policy agenda, we must first consider his vexatious pursuit of President Bola Tinubu’s controversial past. Recently, I wrote a piece titled “2027: Atiku should forget Tinubu’s past, focus on his own future” (Vanguard, August 6, 2026). I argued that Atiku’s decision to hire a US lobbying firm to unearth documents relating to Tinubu’s alleged involvement in drug trafficking investigations in the US and send them to the US president and Congress was a red herring, a fishing expedition that failed the “so what?” test. The Supreme Court settled the matter in 2023, saying that Tinubu’s forfeiture of $460,000 in a narcotics-trafficking investigation in the US did not disqualify him from running for president because the forfeiture arose from civil proceedings, not a criminal trial. So, why is Atiku throwing his resources at a foreign issue that would make no difference to the outcome of next year’s presidential poll? It’s clear evidence of a kitchen-sink strategy!

But Atiku is also pursuing Tinubu at home through the courts. Recently, he asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to disqualify President Tinubu from seeking re-election in 2027, alleging that he submitted a “forged” National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) certificate to INEC, as the certificate bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, while the president’s official name is “Bola Ahmed Tinubu”. This is not a trivial issue. Yet, given that Tinubu was deemed eligible to be president in 2023, why should he be ineligible to seek another term in 2027? The truth is, neither INEC nor the courts would disqualify Tinubu from seeking re-election next year, forged certificate or not. So, why is Atiku throwing money at an issue that won’t stop Tinubu’s second-term bid? Again, it’s evidence of a kitchen-sink approach.

Now, let’s turn to Atiku’s 12-point “policy commitment”. Interestingly, none of them contains detailed analysis on deliverability, dependencies, trade-offs and unintended consequences, all of which credible policy commitments should address. Given Atiku’s vow to serve for only one term, if elected, the lack of clarity around prioritisation and timescale further undermines the “commitments”. Perhaps Atiku would flesh out the pledges in his full manifesto, so let’s cut him some slack. Yet, looking at the high-level commitments, Atiku is giving hostages to fortune and seems oblivious to what he’s letting himself in for, should he win next year.

So, what are the policy commitments? Well, I focus on six here; they are the more complex and high-profile. These are Atiku’s promises to: 1) restore the fuel subsidy; 2) implement the Supreme Court judgment on local government autonomy; 3) strengthen national security in one year; 4) devolve powers to subnational governments by restructuring the Exclusive and Concurrent Legislative List, giving states and local governments greater responsibility and capacity while creating a smart, compact, lean and efficient Federal Government on matters that genuinely require national coordination; 5) implement the Oronsaye Report to eliminate waste, duplication and institutional overlap, reduce opportunities for corruption, and rationalise government agencies, performance and service delivery across the public service; and 6) bring Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso back into ECOWAS.

The above commitments have one thing in common. None of them is an easy deliverable; each requires detailed and rigorous planning, extensive consultations and engagement, as well as hard compromises and trade-offs. Yet, Atiku presents them as certitudes, such as the pledge to tackle insecurity within one year! The late New York Governor Mario Cuomo famously said: “You campaign in poetry; you govern in prose.” He meant that politicians use lofty, inspiring ideals and grand rhetoric to win election, but confront harsh realities, including complexities and hard choices, once they are in power. So, what are the “poetry” and the “prose” of some of Atiku’s 12-point policy commitments?

Take the fuel subsidy. Atiku vowed to restore the subsidy but said it would be based on production, whereby local refineries would receive crude at reduced prices and then be required to sell the refined fuel at lower prices to consumers. Atiku’s subsidy pledge contains soundbites like “the subsidy will follow the barrel”, meaning that domestic refineries that receive subsidised crude must refine it in Nigeria and sell the refined fuel at reduced prices to consumers. This is a complex subsidy regime that would require government interference and intrusion into private refineries. For instance, crude is only a part of refining’s cost element, so who will determine the right fuel prices for consumers to reflect the subsidised crude? How would the use of subsidised crude be monitored? And where’s the guarantee of crude supply? In 2024, President Tinubu ordered NNPC to sell crude to Dangote Refinery in local currency, but Dangote said his refinery never received the crude it needed. Has Atiku investigated why NNPC can’t supply enough crude to domestic refineries? Would his government compel NNPC to supply crude it doesn’t have, perhaps due to international commitments? The pragmatic solution is to maintain the subsidy removal but pass its savings directly to consumers through, for instance, a price cap on fuel sold to consumers up to a certain number of litres, as Iran does, capping fuel prices at 110 litres per motorist!

Then, take Atiku’s vow to implement the Supreme Court judgment on local government autonomy. He said he would “ensure that funds due to local councils reach them directly”. But how? Surely, he would spend four years fighting state governors, purporting to defend local councils that remain administratively and politically under their firm control. As I wrote previously, the Supreme Court judgment contradicted section 165(6) of the Constitution, which says that “Each State shall maintain a special account to be called ‘State Joint Local Government Account’”, and undermined the principles of federalism. The truth is, state–local government frictions can only be resolved through a political settlement, not through judicial activism or the crude display of federal might.

Which leads us to Atiku’s promise of political restructuring. To be fair, Atiku has been consistent on the issue of restructuring. He promised restructuring when he ran for president in 2019 and repeated the pledge in 2023. But the type of restructuring that Nigeria needs, and which Atiku promises, cannot be achieved without extensive consultations, a national consensus and even, let’s face it, a referendum. So, Atiku’s pledge to achieve far-reaching devolution of power and remake the Nigerian state within four years is rather glib; he’s campaigning in poetry, ignoring the prose of governing.

Tell me, why is Atiku talking about implementing the Oronsaye Report in 2026? In 2024, President Tinubu ordered the “full implementation” of the report; today, there are more agencies, not fewer. The Oronsaye Report is outdated. Nigeria is far more administratively over-governed today than when the report was submitted to the Jonathan government in 2012. So, Atiku’s pledge to implement the Oronsaye Report is another evidence of a kitchen-sink approach. The pledge is dismal for its lack of seriousness. Finally, what’s the price of bringing Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso back into ECOWAS? Atiku must know what current ECOWAS leaders don’t, or have the Midas touch they lack. To lead is to choose and recognise the trade-offs that policy pledges will throw up. But Atiku’s 12-point commitment reflects just the “poetry” for winning, not the “prose” of governing. His kitchen-sink approach betrays populism, not a serious policy agenda!