By PAUL IBE
As Nigeria approaches the 2027 presidential election, much of the debate has centred on the qualifications, antecedents, integrity and eligibility of those seeking the presidency. But there is another question Nigerians should be asking: Are those seeking to lead Nigeria medically capable of discharging the enormous responsibilities of the presidency?
This is not about age, disability or stigmatising illness. It is not a licence for political persecution. It is a question of capacity, transparency and national security.
The 1999 Constitution, as amended, does not expressly require presidential candidates to undergo medical examinations. Yet it clearly recognises that medical incapacity can affect the ability to serve. Section 137 addresses unsoundness of mind, while Section 144 provides a constitutional procedure for determining whether a sitting President or Vice-President has become permanently incapable of performing the functions of office because of an infirmity of body or mind.
If the Constitution recognises medical incapacity as serious enough to potentially remove a sitting President, Nigerians are entitled to ask why there should be no credible mechanism for assessing presidential candidates before they are elected. Nigeria’s experience during the Buhari years demonstrated how presidential ill-health, prolonged medical absences and secrecy can generate enormous public anxiety and political controversy.
We should learn from that experience. The answer to speculation about a candidate’s health is not more speculation. It is independent professional assessment. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is seeking another term, and there has been considerable public discussion about his health. Even Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the ADC, alluded to that in a recent interview. But this should not become a Tinubu-only issue. If Tinubu is fit, let an independent panel establish it. If Atiku Abubakar is fit, let the same panel establish it. If Peter Obi is fit, let the same standard apply. And every other presidential candidate should be subjected to exactly the same process.
Medical fitness should also not be confused with physical perfection. A person can live productively with a chronic condition or disability and still be fully capable of serving as President. The relevant question is simple: Is the candidate medically capable of continuously and effectively discharging the constitutional responsibilities of the presidency?
The Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) should lead a national conversation on this issue. It has previously advocated medical and psychiatric evaluation of presidential and governorship candidates. An independent multidisciplinary panel could establish appropriate standards, conduct the assessments and provide a professional fitness certification while protecting legitimate medical privacy.
The presidency is not an ordinary occupation. The President is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and bears enormous responsibility for national security, foreign policy and the direction of the Federal Government. Presidential health can therefore become a national-security question when it affects the capacity to perform those responsibilities.
The opposition should consequently demand a standard, not a diagnosis. Politicians should not attempt to diagnose candidates from photographs, speeches or social-media videos. Let qualified medical professionals determine fitness. Nigeria has spent enormous energy asking whether presidential candidates are legally qualified, politically popular or electorally viable. We should also ask whether they are medically capable of doing the job. Independent medical assessment. Equal standards. Professional certification. Appropriate transparency.
The time to establish that principle is before the 2027 election—not after another presidential health controversy becomes a national crisis.
•Ibe, Media Adviser to Atiku Abubakar, writes from Abuja.
The post The President’s health: A 2027 national security question appeared first on Vanguard News.