This post has already been read at least 119 times!

By John Apollos Maton

I have taken time to study the two interventions by Bolaji O. Akinyemi—first, “Political Tombstone of Bola Ahmed Tinubu” and second, “A Tinubu paradigm shift from a Politician to a Statesman.” Both pieces are not only bold in their critique of the present administration but also courageous in asking questions that many Nigerians shy away from.

They interrogate not just Tinubu’s two years in office but also the larger implications of his choices for Nigeria’s future. Yet, while Akinyemi’s essays are incisive in their description of Tinubu’s political maneuverings and the risks of ambition-driven leadership, I believe the true heart of the matter lies in the structural failure of Nigeria’s federation, without which no leader—be it Jonathan, Buhari, Tinubu, or Obi—can truly succeed.

In his first essay, Akinyemi raises the critical issue of ambition as a trap. He argues that Tinubu’s obsession with political survival and possible re-election risks overshadowing the call to build a legacy. He points out that the President’s policies have deepened economic hardship, silenced opposition, and narrowed the democratic space.

These are valid concerns. Tinubu’s famed political genius, which saw him consolidate Lagos and midwife a national coalition, is now under strain as he governs a nation that requires far more than tactics—it requires transformation.

I agree fully with Akinyemi’s caution: an ambition without a foundation in real service will collapse under its own weight, and Tinubu risks building a tombstone over his own political career if he confuses personal survival for national greatness.

The follow-up essay, “A Tinubu paradigm shift from a Politician to a Statesman,” deepens the argument by contrasting politics and statesmanship. Akinyemi describes Tinubu as a political maestro, yet one hampered by structural ignorance of Nigeria’s multicultural complexities.

He correctly notes that no matter how skillful Tinubu may be, the presidential system itself—entrenched under the 1999 Constitution—has proven incapable of delivering progress in Nigeria.

Here, his analysis strikes at the core of our national malaise. The problem is not just corruption or leadership style; it is the very architecture of governance, a centralised, pseudo-federal system that suffocates innovation, breeds resentment, and entrenches domination by a narrow elite.

Where I must extend the argument further is in emphasising that true statesmanship cannot be measured by political succession games, even if Tinubu succeeds in handing over to protégés or balancing power blocs. Those are still the tools of politics, not of statesmanship.

Real statesmanship lies in courageously dismantling the structures that perpetuate Nigeria’s dysfunction and replacing them with a truly federal arrangement that guarantees equity, autonomy, and productivity. Tinubu, if he so chooses, can use his tenure to midwife a return to the spirit of the 1963 Republican Constitution, where regions thrived based on their strengths and contributed meaningfully to a united but balanced federation. Without such restructuring, the story of his presidency will remain another chapter of unfulfilled promise.

Both essays also touch on the dangerous politics of generalisation, where whole ethnicities are reduced to stereotypes, and leadership is seen only through regional prisms. This mentality, as Akinyemi notes, has prevented Nigeria from allowing individuals to define themselves outside inherited prejudices.

Tinubu, like Jonathan before him, has been trapped in a system where ethnic and sectional suspicion dictates governance more than policy. To rise above this, Tinubu must deliberately institutionalise inclusivity—not by token appointments or symbolic gestures, but by restructuring the federation so that no group feels compelled to dominate or to resist domination. That is the surest guarantee of national stability.

The vision Akinyemi hints at—Tinubu transforming from politician to statesman—will remain incomplete without restructuring as its anchor. For all his political mastery, Tinubu must decide whether his legacy will be measured by how many protégés he installs in office or whether he will be remembered as the leader who, like Chief Anthony Enahoro before him, pushed Nigeria back to the path of true federalism.

His choice will determine whether his name is carved into history as the father of a modern Nigeria or as yet another tactician who squandered the opportunity of a lifetime.

In conclusion, I submit that Akinyemi’s essays have done us a great service by framing the challenge of Tinubu’s presidency as a choice between politics and statesmanship. But I add that this choice cannot be abstract—it must be concretised in restructuring.

Without it, no president can escape failure; with it, even a flawed leader can achieve greatness. For Tinubu, the pathway is clear: abandon the tombstone of ambition, rise above the games of power, and embrace the mantle of statesmanship by rebuilding Nigeria’s foundation. If he does so, history will not only remember him—it will honour him.

*Barr. John Apollos Maton shared this piece on social media.

This post has already been read at least 119 times!