‎Atiku’s hypocrisy and ADC coalition: Why Nigerians must resist another spectacular gamble

‎Atiku’s hypocrisy and ADC coalition: Why Nigerians must resist another spectacular gamble
‎
‎By Engr. Ahmed Jalingo
‎
‎For close to three decades, Atiku Abubakar has remained a recurring decimal in our presidential contest and a gangling figure in Nigeria’s political landscape.
‎
‎ From the early days of the Fourth Republic to the present moment, his presence has been constant. Yet, for all that longevity, one defining trait has persisted, an entrenched pattern of political inconsistency, self-preservation, and calculated maneuvering that continues to shape his public image.
‎
‎Atiku’s political journey, rather than reflect an evolving discipline or ideological precepts and consistency appears to many observers as a rentier system that only serves his whimsical ego of leading the country at all cost.
‎
‎Over the years he has built a reputation as a savvy political entrepreneur whose ambition must thrive otherwise he will rock the ship. He has over the years become the spoiler in chief building coalitions and rocking them at will if they failed to serve his vaunted ambition.
‎
‎Atiku Abubakar has over the years carved a place in modern political history as an undertaker who rupture political structures and systems, cause massive internal party upheavals, fracture alliances, and ultimately, electoral disappointments.
‎
‎When the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) faced one of the most critical periods in its history, what was required was cohesion, discipline, and a commitment to rebuild trust among its members. Instead, Atiku’s insistence on securing what he described as the “right of first refusal” for the 2027 presidential ticket further deepened internal divisions. That singular pursuit of personal ambition contributed significantly to the party’s instability and weakened its capacity to function as a credible opposition force.
‎
‎Having exited the PDP under those circumstances, Atiku has now re-emerged within the African Democratic Congress (ADC), presenting what is being described as a grand “coalition” of opposition forces. On the surface, this may appear to be a strategic realignment aimed at rescuing Nigeria’s democracy. However, a closer examination reveals a troubling possibility—that this so-called coalition may in fact be a carefully orchestrated political construct designed to serve familiar personal ambitions.
‎
‎The pattern is not new. It follows a well-established script: enter a political platform, build influence within its internal structure, shape the narrative ahead of primaries, and ultimately emerge as a “consensus” candidate. In the process, strong and independent political figures such as Peter Obi and Rotimi Amaechi may be compelled to either accept subordinate roles or step aside entirely.
‎
‎Equally concerning are the growing questions surrounding Atiku’s financial capacity. Once widely regarded as one of Nigeria’s most formidable business figures, recent developments have sparked speculation about the state of his economic empire. Reports of asset disposals and financial restructuring across sectors—from logistics to media—suggest mounting pressures that cannot be ignored.
‎
‎This raises a critical and unavoidable question: how does a man facing such uncertainties sustain the financial demands of a presidential campaign in a country where elections are among the most expensive on the continent? If not from personal resources, then from where is the funding originating? Nigerians deserve transparent answers from Atiku on this very critical concern.
‎
‎The contradictions do not end there. Atiku continues to position himself as a leading opposition voice against the current administration, yet allegations of elite alignments and indirect political cooperation persist. This dual posture—public opposition combined with perceived behind-the-scenes accommodation—reinforces the perception of hypocrisy that increasingly defines his political brand.
‎
‎Furthermore, the composition of the ADC’s emerging leadership raises additional concerns. The involvement of long-standing political figures such as David Mark, Babachir Lawan, Kashim Imam, Adamu Maina Waziri and Rauf Aregbesola suggests not a break from the past, but rather a continuation of entrenched political networks. Instead of offering a fresh alternative, the coalition risks becoming a gathering of familiar actors repackaging old power structures.
‎
‎This leads to a fundamental question Nigerians must confront: how can individuals widely perceived to have contributed to the weakening of one major political party now be entrusted with building another? More importantly, how can a coalition dominated by established political elites convincingly present itself as a vehicle for genuine change?
‎
‎The stakes are too high for sentiment or blind loyalty. Nigeria’s democratic future depends on the ability of its citizens to critically evaluate political movements beyond slogans and carefully crafted narratives. The issue at hand is not merely about Atiku Abubakar as an individual—it is about a recurring pattern in Nigerian politics where personal ambition is consistently disguised as national interest.
‎
‎If history is any guide, the ADC experiment, in its current form, risks becoming yet another chapter in that cycle of political recycling. Nigerians must therefore remain vigilant, discerning, and unwilling to accept recycled scripts dressed up as new beginnings.
‎
‎Jalingo, writes Jalingo town.
‎