The Nigerian political landscape is abuzz with controversy following allegations that President Bola Tinubu is funding the opposition Social Democratic Party (SDP). The claim, initially made by a Lagos APC chieftain, Joe Igbokwe, has sparked a flurry of reactions from various stakeholders, including the Presidency, the SDP, and political strategists. Igbokwe’s assertion, fueled by the recent defection of former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai to the SDP, suggested that the party was an extension of Tinubu’s political dynasty. He pointed to Tinubu’s history as an SDP senator in 1993 as evidence, urging those with presidential ambitions in 2027 to recognize Tinubu’s alleged ownership of the party.
The claim has been met with strong denials from both the Presidency and the SDP. Adewole Adebayo, the SDP’s 2023 presidential candidate, dismissed Igbokwe’s statement, questioning his political relevance and suggesting that Tinubu’s supporters should find more credible spokespeople. Presidential spokesperson, Daniel Bwala, also refuted the allegation, emphasizing Tinubu’s longstanding loyalty to the APC and its predecessor parties, from the AD and AC to ACN. Bwala asserted that there was no record of Tinubu’s involvement with the SDP, either as a member or a leader, throughout his political career.
However, Salihu Lukman, a former APC National Vice Chairman and a key figure in ongoing coalition talks, offered a nuanced perspective on the situation. Lukman confirmed that there had indeed been an agreement between Tinubu and the SDP prior to the 2023 primaries. However, he emphasized that this arrangement had since been terminated, and Tinubu currently holds no relationship with the SDP. Lukman clarified that the ongoing negotiations with the SDP are focused on restructuring the party’s leadership to reflect a broader coalition, rather than Tinubu’s alleged control. The sticking point, according to Lukman, is the SDP’s resistance to internal reforms and power-sharing, likened to a homeowner refusing a tenant’s right to make changes.
El-Rufai’s unexpected defection has further complicated the political landscape and the coalition talks. Lukman expressed concern that El-Rufai’s move has created a new power dynamic, potentially positioning him as the new godfather of the SDP and attracting loyalists to him, rather than to the broader coalition being negotiated. He lamented El-Rufai’s “hasty” defection, arguing that it preempted the ongoing negotiations and created a perception of El-Rufai as the driving force behind the movement, rather than a collective effort.
The ongoing saga underscores the fluid and often opaque nature of Nigerian politics. While the Presidency and the SDP have vehemently denied any current connection between Tinubu and the SDP, Lukman’s account suggests a prior arrangement that has since dissolved. This discrepancy raises questions about the true nature of the relationship and the motivations behind the various pronouncements. The situation is further complicated by El-Rufai’s defection, which has introduced new power dynamics and potential rivalries within the emerging political alliances. This complex interplay of actors and interests makes it challenging to discern the full picture and predict the future trajectory of these political realignments.
The controversy surrounding Tinubu’s alleged involvement with the SDP is likely to persist as political maneuvering continues in anticipation of the 2027 elections. The unfolding events will undoubtedly shape the future landscape of Nigerian politics and the strategies employed by various actors vying for power. The conflicting narratives and the involvement of key political figures like El-Rufai and Lukman add layers of complexity to the situation, making it a compelling case study in the dynamics of power, negotiation, and alliance-building in a politically charged environment. The outcome of the ongoing negotiations and the ultimate fate of the SDP will be crucial in determining the shape of the political battlefield in the years to come.
