Sunday Aborisade writes that the charge by the Chairman/Editor-in-Chief of THISDAY Newspapers and AriseNews Group, Nduka Obaigbena, to political gladiators last Thursday exposes the country’s enduring campaign culture of personality, propaganda and smear, and raises questions about what the contestants, the media and the regulators must henceforth, do differently.
As Nigeria inches towards another general election in 2027, the country is once again confronted with an old but increasingly dangerous question: will political parties compete on the strength of their ideas, or will the contest degenerate into another bruising battle of personalities, accusations, propaganda and smear campaigns?
That question assumed renewed significance following the intervention by the Chairman of THISDAY and Arise Media Group, Nduka Obaigbena, who challenged political leaders to make the 2027 election a contest of policies rather than that of personalities.
Speaking during a panel discussion at the centenary celebration of the Daily Times of Nigeria at the THISDAY DOME in Abuja, Obaigbena did not merely appeal for civility in political campaigns. He put before Nigeria’s political class, a more fundamental democratic proposition: that elections should give citizens the opportunity to compare competing visions for the country and make informed choices.
His challenge was direct: “I believe I should implore our leaders to fight the election on policies.” He immediately followed the appeal with questions that go to the heart of Nigeria’s political and economic predicament. He asked, “Should we have subsidy or should we not? Let us debate it. Should we go back to the command-and-control exchange rates, or should we allow the markets? Should we have tax reforms such that we can equalise the gaps between the rich and the poor? How do we deal with insecurity? Is state police an answer? What does Abubakar Atiku think? What does Peter Obi think? Let us debate our future on policies.”
There is perhaps no better time for such an intervention. Nigeria’s elections have historically been characterised by intense personality contests in which candidates and parties frequently devote considerable energy to defining the weaknesses, alleged failings and controversies surrounding their opponents, sometimes at the expense of presenting detailed and measurable alternatives.
From the First Republic through the military interregnums and the return to democratic rule in 1999, Nigerian politics has repeatedly demonstrated that electoral contests can become battles not merely for votes but for control of the political narrative.
Campaigns have often revolved around personalities, ethnicity, religion, regional calculations, allegations of corruption, questions of competence and accusations of betrayal.
In the digital age, these tendencies have acquired a new and potentially more destructive dimension, as social media has made every supporter a potential campaign broadcaster and every allegation capable of reaching millions within minutes.
It is against this background that Obaigbena’s warning deserves to be taken seriously. “Let us not return to any smear campaign,” he cautioned. “Let us domesticate our fight in Nigeria and debate policies that affect people, especially poverty, hardship. What is your alternative?”
The phrase “what is your alternative?” perhaps represents the most important challenge in the entire intervention.
For an electorate struggling with the cost of living, unemployment, insecurity, weak purchasing power, inadequate infrastructure and declining confidence in public institutions, the central question should not simply be whether one politician is better or worse than the other. It should be what each candidate intends to do differently, how the proposed policies will be financed, how they will be implemented and what measurable outcomes Nigerians should expect.
The practical difficulty, however, is that issue-based politics is easier demanded than practised. Nigerian political campaigns have traditionally been expensive, highly competitive and personality-driven.
Political parties frequently depend on political structures built around influential individuals, financiers and local power brokers. Candidates are therefore often encouraged to deploy every available political weapon against opponents.
A serious policy debate also carries risks for politicians. Once a candidate makes a specific promise on fuel pricing, taxation, exchange rates, security, electricity or employment, the electorate and the media can subsequently hold that candidate accountable.
A vague attack on an opponent is easier to make and harder to measure. A policy commitment is different. It creates an obligation. That is precisely why Obaigbena’s proposal, if embraced, could fundamentally alter the quality of political competition in Nigeria.
Imagine a 2027 presidential campaign in which candidates are required to confront, in sustained public debate, the question of whether Nigeria should retain the present market-oriented approach to foreign exchange or return to greater state control.
Imagine them defending their respective positions on fuel subsidy, taxation, fiscal federalism, state police, unemployment, education, healthcare and insecurity.
Rather than asking Nigerians to vote principally for personalities, the political class would be compelled to explain competing policy choices. The electorate would then have something concrete to compare.
Obaigbena’s challenge to presidential contenders was therefore particularly pointed. “What does Abubakar Atiku think? What does Peter Obi think?”
The significance of that question extends beyond the two politicians he mentioned. It is a demand directed at every presidential aspirant and political party: tell Nigerians what you believe, explain how you intend to achieve it and submit your ideas to public scrutiny.
“Let us debate our future on policies,” he declared.
The implications of political gladiators heeding this advice could be profound. First, it would strengthen democratic accountability. Candidates who campaign on clearly defined policies can be judged after assuming office against the commitments they made before the election.
Second, it would improve the quality of voter choice. Citizens would be better positioned to distinguish between political rhetoric and workable programmes.
Third, it could reduce the toxicity of electoral campaigns. This does not mean disagreement would disappear.
Democracy thrives on disagreement. But disagreement over policy is fundamentally different from personal vilification, character assassination and the deliberate circulation of falsehoods.
Fourth, issue-based campaigns could force political parties to improve their internal research, policy development and manifesto-writing capacities. Parties would need economists, security experts, constitutional lawyers, social scientists and other specialists capable of translating campaign promises into credible programmes.
The alternative is frightening.
If politicians continue to ignore the appeal and campaigns remain dominated by smear, propaganda and personal attacks, the consequences could extend beyond election day.
Persistent political demonisation deepens social divisions. Supporters begin to perceive opponents not as fellow citizens with different political opinions but as enemies who must be defeated at all costs. In a country already burdened by ethnic, religious, regional and socioeconomic tensions, this can become combustible.
The danger is even greater in an environment where false information travels faster than corrections.
This is where the media enters the equation.
Obaigbena did not divorce his call for responsible politics from the responsibilities of journalism. On the contrary, he argued that technological changes had transformed the distribution of news without altering journalism’s fundamental obligation to society.
“Journalism remains the same yesterday, today and tomorrow,” he said. “So the forms of distribution have changed. So the audiences have expanded as distribution is now in individual hands. That’s what technology has done.”
That observation is particularly relevant to Nigeria’s 2027 election. The journalist is no longer operating in an environment where newspapers, radio and television alone determine the flow of political information.
Politicians, parties, influencers and ordinary citizens now possess powerful platforms capable of bypassing traditional editorial gatekeepers.
But the democratisation of distribution cannot mean the democratisation of truth. The responsibility of professional journalism therefore becomes even greater.
The media must interrogate political claims, fact-check manifestos, compare promises with available resources and challenge candidates who make demonstrably false assertions. It must resist becoming an amplifier for unverified allegations merely because they are politically sensational.
But the media cannot do this alone. Regulatory institutions must also strengthen the rules governing electoral communication.
The Independent National Electoral Commission must continue to insist that parties and candidates respect the legal boundaries of campaigning, while relevant broadcasting and advertising regulators should enforce professional standards without allowing regulation to become an instrument for suppressing legitimate criticism.
There must be a clear distinction between criticism and defamation, political disagreement and hate speech, robust scrutiny and deliberate disinformation.
The regulatory response should not be selective. Rules that apply to one political party must apply equally to another, irrespective of its access to government or political influence.
The media itself must also look inward
News organisations should establish stronger election desks, verification mechanisms and editorial policies for handling allegations against political opponents.
Political claims should be tested against available evidence before publication. Anonymous social-media allegations should not automatically acquire the credibility of professionally sourced journalism.
Most importantly, the media should reclaim the idea of the public-interest interview.
Obaigbena’s call was unequivocal:
“We want to hear from them. We want to see the debates. The media must insist on it because the Nigerian people need it.” This is a powerful prescription for the 2027 election.
Presidential debates should not be treated as optional entertainment or ceremonial events that candidates attend only when politically convenient. They should become a central component of democratic accountability.
The media, civil society organisations, professional bodies and electoral institutions can work together to establish credible debate platforms with transparent rules.
Candidates should be asked identical questions on the economy, security, job creation, education, healthcare, taxation, federalism, constitutional reform and other national priorities.
They should be allowed to challenge one another, but their answers should subsequently be subjected to independent fact-checking. Such debates would expose both the strengths and weaknesses of competing political programmes.
More importantly, they would give Nigerians an opportunity to hear directly from those asking for their votes.
Yet, the responsibility ultimately belongs to the electorate as well. A political system will continue to produce personality-driven campaigns for as long as voters reward politicians for them. If Nigerians demand policy documents, question candidates about implementation and punish politicians who make promises they subsequently abandon, political parties will eventually adapt.
Obaigbena’s intervention is therefore not simply a plea to politicians to be nicer to one another. It is a call for a different political culture. He wants Nigerians to ask fundamental questions: What is your position on subsidy? What is your position on exchange rates? What is your solution to insecurity? What is your position on state police? How will you reform taxation? How will you address poverty and hardship? And, ultimately: “What is your alternative?”
That question should become the moral and intellectual centre of the 2027 campaign. Nigeria does not need an election devoid of controversy. It needs an election in which controversy is anchored in ideas. It does not need politicians to stop criticising one another. It needs criticism to be based on facts, records and policy differences rather than manufactured allegations and character assassination.
The 2027 election offers the political class an opportunity to elevate the national conversation. Whether that opportunity is seized will depend on politicians, but also on the media, regulators, civil society and voters.
If they heed Obaigbena’s counsel, the election could become a contest in which Nigerians are invited to choose not merely who they like, but what kind of country they want. If they ignore it, the country risks another electoral cycle in which noise overwhelms substance, personality eclipses policy, propaganda displaces truth and political victory becomes more important than national consequence.
For a democracy confronting poverty, insecurity, economic uncertainty and declining public trust, that would be a costly failure.
The question before Nigeria, therefore, is not whether political campaigns will be fiercely contested. They inevitably will.
The more consequential question is whether, in 2027, the fierce contest will be over who can offer Nigeria the better future, or who can most effectively destroy the reputation of the person standing in the way.
Obaigbena has succinctly put the choice before the political class saying “let us debate our future on policies.”
Nigeria should demand nothing less.