When General Sani Abacha forcibly took the reins of power from the interim government led by Chief Ernest Shonekan in 1993, he disguised his autocratic intentions with the promise of restoring democracy. Initially, he gave the impression that he would transfer power to Chief MKO Abiola, widely believed to have won the annulled June 12, 1993, presidential election. Later, he feigned commitment to organizing elections and handing power to a civilian government. However, these claims were merely a facade as Abacha steadily tightened his grip on power, silencing critics and eroding democratic institutions.

Eventually, Abacha pledged to relinquish power to a democratically elected government by October 1, 1998. Political actors, seeing a glimmer of hope, began forming political parties in anticipation of democratic transition. The regime approved five political parties and even conducted local and state legislative elections in 1997, followed by federal legislative elections in April 1998. Gubernatorial and presidential elections were slated for August 1, 1998.

The Rise of YEAA and the Path to Self-Succession

Despite this democratic charade, Abacha was orchestrating a sinister scheme behind the scenes. A pro-Abacha group named Youths Earnestly Ask for Abacha (YEAA) emerged in 1997. Founded by a 26-year-old Nigerian-American named Daniel Kanu, the group began a highly funded campaign urging Abacha to discard his military uniform and become a civilian president. The source of the group’s considerable financial resources raised eyebrows, as its leaders clearly lacked the means to fund such an expansive operation.

YEAA launched a media blitz in support of its Two-Million-Man March, a rally held in Abuja on March 3 and 4, 1998, designed to fabricate mass youth support for Abacha’s continued rule. In contrast, a counter-movement led by Mr. Olisa Agbakoba under the United Action for Democracy proposed a Five-Million-Man March to reject Abacha’s self-succession plan. While Kanu’s rally proceeded with full security backing, Agbakoba’s peaceful protest was brutally suppressed by security forces. Agbakoba sustained a black eye during the crackdown—a moment prominently featured in national newspapers—reinforcing public perception that Abacha was behind YEAA.

One Candidate, Five Parties, Zero Democracy

As 1998 progressed, presidential aspirants began to withdraw from the race under mysterious circumstances. Gradually, all five approved political parties adopted Abacha as their sole presidential candidate, despite the fact that he was not a registered member of any of them. This unprecedented consensus pointed to a shadowy influence—likely orchestrated by Abacha himself—bending the political landscape in his favor.

Violence against dissenters escalated. Bombings targeted homes and offices of critics. Assassinations and unexplained deaths became common. Prominent opposition figures were imprisoned, accused of treason, or fled the country to escape persecution. Notably, Senator Bola Tinubu sought refuge abroad. Nigerians watched in despair as their democracy teetered on the edge of total collapse. A group of 34 prominent Nigerians (G34), led by Dr. Alex Ekwueme, wrote to Abacha warning against his planned civilian succession, but their plea was ignored.

Then, unexpectedly, death intervened. On June 8, 1998, Abacha died. It was the only force powerful enough to halt his march toward life-long authoritarian rule.

A Déjà Vu Moment Under Tinubu’s Watch

Decades later, Nigeria finds itself at another critical democratic crossroads. Ironically, Bola Tinubu—once a victim of Abacha’s repressive tactics—now faces criticism for allowing similar tendencies to fester under his administration. A creeping one-party dominance reminiscent of the Abacha era is becoming increasingly visible.

The most glaring indicator came on May 22, 2025, during the APC summit in Abuja. Senate President Godswill Akpabio and House of Representatives Speaker Tajudeen Abbas moved a motion endorsing President Tinubu as the sole candidate for the 2027 presidential election—nearly three years before the polls.

Akpabio declared:

“Not only will President Bola Ahmed Tinubu be the sole candidate for the presidency in 2027, but he will also be the sole candidate for the whole Nigerian population… I move, therefore, as the Senate President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, that Mr President return, one, as a candidate of the APC unopposed, and secondly, as the next president for a second term, come 2027. I so move.”

Speaker Abbas promptly seconded the motion, claiming to speak for all 109 senators, 360 House members, and 36 state assemblies. This development sent shockwaves through the nation. For many, it evoked memories of 1998, when the legislature, instead of providing checks and balances, collapsed into a rubber-stamp institution that served the executive’s ambitions.

Legislature: Guardian of Democracy, Not Servant of the Presidency

In any democratic system, the legislature stands as the first line of defense for the Constitution. Unlike the executive or judiciary, the legislature represents the collective will of the people. Its members are elected from diverse constituencies and are duty-bound to ensure that no branch of government exceeds its constitutional limits.

That is why, when the President visits the National Assembly, he traditionally bows to the Senate President—not out of personal subservience but as a symbolic gesture of respect for the Constitution. For the Senate President and Speaker to now be leading the charge to canonize President Tinubu as the unchallenged leader in 2027 is an affront to Nigeria’s democratic heritage.

This mirrors the tragic events of the Abacha era, where dissent was criminalized, opposition was neutralized, and the illusion of popular support masked authoritarian rule. Endorsing a single candidate without room for competition undermines the very principles of pluralism and accountability.

A Democratic Decline in the Midst of Crisis

After 26 years of uninterrupted democracy—the longest stretch in Nigerian history—one would expect significant strides in democratic governance. Unfortunately, many argue that democracy today seems more fragile than it was in 1999.

While leaders obsess over the 2027 elections, pressing governance issues continue to worsen. Insecurity, for instance, has resurged in parts of the country. Just last month, Governor Babagana Zulum of Borno State lamented the deteriorating security situation:

“It is unfortunate that the renewed Boko Haram attacks and kidnappings in many communities, almost on a daily basis without confrontation, signal that Borno State is losing ground.”

These failures point to a government more preoccupied with political consolidation than public service. The nation needs statesmen, not politicians. As American theologian James Freeman Clarke aptly put it, “A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation.”

The Path Forward: Reclaiming Democratic Integrity

Nigeria stands at a decisive moment. The troubling attempt to unilaterally endorse a presidential candidate years ahead of an election undermines the credibility of the democratic process. The legislative leadership, in particular, must recommit to its constitutional role of oversight and representation rather than submission.

True democratic maturity requires institutions that are robust, independent, and committed to the principles of competition, accountability, and rule of law. Nigerians fought long and hard to break free from the grip of military dictatorship. The memories of the Abacha era remain fresh, not as a legacy to replicate but as a cautionary tale.

If President Tinubu wishes to be remembered as a democratic leader and not as a civilian iteration of a military autocrat, he must decisively reject attempts to turn Nigeria into a one-party state. He must allow institutions to flourish and opposition voices to be heard.

Nigeria’s democracy can only thrive when leaders act with the future in mind—not just their political survival. The 2027 election must be an open, competitive, and credible contest. Anything less would not only betray the democratic journey but also risk pushing the nation back toward authoritarianism.

Let history not repeat itself.