The Politics of Succession: When Governors Seek Heirs Instead of Accountability
By The Analyst Online Media
Nigeria's democracy is confronting an increasingly troubling political practice: governors approaching the end of their tenure who appear more interested in determining who succeeds them than in allowing voters to freely decide the future of their states.
There is nothing wrong with an incumbent supporting a preferred candidate. The problem begins when succession politics becomes a mechanism for preserving influence, protecting political networks or potentially shielding an outgoing administration from scrutiny.
That raises a fundamental question:
Is the preferred successor being promoted because he is the best candidate for the state—or because he is the safest candidate for the outgoing establishment?
When succession becomes self-preservation
A governor's tenure is temporary. The institutions and people he governs remain.
An outgoing administration should therefore leave behind transparent records, functioning institutions and a credible democratic transition—not a political arrangement designed to guarantee that its preferred successor inherits power.
Yet in several states, the language of political “anointment” is becoming increasingly common.
But anointment is not democracy.
A governor's endorsement does not confer competence, and political loyalty is not a substitute for experience, integrity or a credible programme of government.
Citizens should therefore ask simple questions about any anointed candidate: What has he achieved? What does he understand about the state's challenges? What is his economic and development agenda? And will he govern independently or remain politically indebted to those who installed him?
Why independence matters
An independent successor can scrutinise government decisions, examine contracts, review projects and demand explanations for unresolved administrative or financial issues.
A politically dependent successor may be less inclined to do so.
That is why succession should never be reduced to a question of political loyalty. The incoming governor must owe his primary allegiance to the constitution and the people—not to the political machinery that helped him win office.
Bauchi as a case study
Bauchi State offers an important example of the wider national debate as political preparations for 2027 intensify.
Different political interests have every right to promote their candidates. But the contest should not become a struggle over which political godfather can install an heir.
The people deserve a debate about governance.
What has the present administration achieved? Where has it fallen short? What commitments remain outstanding? How sustainable are its projects? What is the state's fiscal position? And which candidate has the competence and independence to address its unresolved challenges?
Those questions are more important than endorsements, slogans and political theatrics.
Governors do not own the future
An elected governor administers a state for a constitutionally limited period. He does not own its electorate or possess a permanent mandate to determine who governs after him.
The electorate must remain free to choose.
If an administration has performed exceptionally well, its strongest argument for continuity should be its record. If it has failed, voters should be equally free to demand a new direction.
That is the essence of democracy.
Beware the politics of distraction
Political succession can also become a convenient distraction from difficult questions about governance.
Instead of defending their records, political actors may turn public attention towards personalities, rival camps, inflammatory statements and manufactured controversies.
Citizens should resist this.
Governments must be judged by measurable results. Candidates must be judged by competence and character. Political claims must be tested against evidence.
The media, too, has a responsibility not to become an instrument for political manipulation.
The 2027 test
The coming elections should not be a competition over who can successfully install a successor. They should be a contest over who can successfully govern.
Every candidate should face serious scrutiny of his record, competence, policies, integrity and capacity to manage public resources.
And every incumbent seeking continuity should be prepared to defend his record before the electorate.
If the preferred successor is genuinely the best person for the job, he should be able to withstand that scrutiny without relying on the protection of the incumbent's political machinery.
Ultimately, the strongest legacy of an outgoing governor is not that he installed a political heir.
It is that he left behind stronger institutions, better services and citizens confident enough to choose their own leaders.
So, as political succession battles intensify across Nigeria, voters should ask one uncomfortable but legitimate question:
Is the anointed successor being presented to serve the people—or to protect the interests of those leaving power?
The answer should matter more than the endorsement.