President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s approach to governance has drawn growing criticism from political commentators, civil society actors, and concerned citizens who argue that his style is ill-suited for Nigeria’s diverse and complex socio-political landscape. In a heterogeneous society like Nigeria—home to over 250 ethnic groups, multiple religions, and varying political interests—analysts insist that leadership demands consensus-building, inclusivity, and a clear understanding of the nation’s delicate balance.
Ikechukwu Amaechi, a respected columnist and political analyst, describes Tinubu’s governance as “injudicious,” pointing to policy decisions that appear to prioritize political survival over national cohesion. From controversial appointments that critics say are skewed toward certain regions, to economic policies that have intensified hardship for millions, the president’s style has fueled debates about whether his administration is bridging or widening Nigeria’s divisions.
Amaechi argues that Tinubu’s governance template, heavily influenced by political patronage and power consolidation, runs counter to the principles of inclusivity that are vital in managing a multi-ethnic state. He cites the removal of fuel subsidy without adequate social cushioning, the implementation of policies that many see as lopsided in favour of his political allies, and the handling of security appointments as examples of actions that risk alienating key sections of the country.
The analysis also notes that in such a diverse nation, every symbolic and practical decision matters. When citizens from certain regions or groups perceive themselves as marginalized, resentment builds, eroding trust in the government. This distrust, if left unaddressed, can lead to political instability, deepen ethnic fault lines, and stall development.
Tinubu’s supporters, however, defend his approach, insisting that the president is pursuing bold reforms necessary to reposition Nigeria for long-term growth. They argue that difficult decisions are often unpopular but necessary to break away from decades of economic stagnation. Still, critics like Amaechi believe that without deliberate efforts to make governance more inclusive and sensitive to Nigeria’s multi-layered identity, such reforms may face resistance and ultimately fail.
Amaechi concludes that a governance style that disregards the sensitivities of Nigeria’s complex social fabric is unsustainable. He warns that Tinubu must shift from a winner-takes-all approach to a more collaborative and equitable model if he hopes to unite the country and leave behind a legacy of stability and progress.