When a Coalition Begins to Unravel

When this series on the ADC coalition and the road to 2027 began, the central question was never whether a coalition could form, but whether it could endure. At the time, the alignment of major political figures created momentum, with growing belief that a credible opposition bloc could emerge.

Even in those early stages, however, there were reasons for caution. Bringing together multiple presidential-level actors without a clear agreement on leadership was always going to strain unity. In Nigerian politics, unresolved ambition rarely resolves itself with time—it deepens.

What is unfolding now across the political space is therefore not surprising. Conversations about exits, alternative platforms, and shifting allegiances have moved into the open. The confirmed departure of Peter Obi from the ADC coalition has already altered opposition dynamics, while Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso continues to be linked to possible strategic repositioning. These developments raise a more fundamental issue: the coalition’s stability was always fragile.

At the centre of this coalition are seasoned political actors—Atiku Abubakar, Obi, Kwankwaso, and Rotimi Amaechi—each with long-standing presidential ambitions, political structures, and national visibility. This gives the coalition strength, but also creates its greatest constraint.

Ambition in Nigerian politics is rarely abandoned. It is negotiated or postponed, but seldom set aside. Any coalition built around such figures must confront a decisive question early: who leads, who follows, and who steps aside. Without clarity, unity becomes temporary. This is where the coalition appears to have stalled.

Comparisons to 2015 have been frequent, particularly the idea of a political “tsunami.” But that analogy overlooks a key factor. The success of the All Progressives Congress in 2015 was anchored on convergence around a single figure—Muhammadu Buhari. His candidacy provided a centre of gravity that simplified negotiations and unified diverse blocs.

No such convergence exists today. The opposition landscape is defined by multiple strong contenders, each with loyal followings but none with uncontested national dominance. In this environment, negotiation becomes unavoidable—and difficult.

While the opposition grapples with internal alignment, the ruling All Progressives Congress operates with greater clarity at the presidential level. Leadership direction is settled, and internal mechanisms for managing competing interests are more established. These are not abstract advantages; they directly influence political outcomes.

By contrast, the coalition is still negotiating itself. That delay carries consequences. Elections are shaped not only by public sentiment, but by organisation, coordination, and timing. A coalition consumed by internal bargaining risks losing the opportunity to build external momentum.

Political stakeholders understand this. Governors, legislators, and key actors tend to align where there is structure, clarity, and a credible path forward. Where uncertainty persists, hesitation follows.

This is how fragmentation begins—not with sudden collapse, but with doubt. Quiet conversations evolve into alternative options, and by the time realignment becomes visible, the shift is already underway.

The implication is clear: a fragmented opposition weakens itself while strengthening the incumbent. Dominance is not always imposed; it often emerges from the opposition’s inability to organise effectively.

At the same time, voter behaviour has evolved. Nigerians are increasingly cautious, placing greater emphasis on individual credibility, track record, and competence rather than party identity alone. This shift makes coalition politics more demanding. It is no longer enough to assemble prominent names; there must be a clear, coherent direction that connects political alignment to governance expectations.

None of this forecloses the possibility of recovery. Politics remains fluid, and realignments can still produce unexpected outcomes. But the window is narrowing—with time and with every sign of internal division.

Ultimately, the coalition’s test was never about the strength of its members, but their willingness to prioritise collective success over individual ambition. That test is now in progress. If current signals harden into exits and parallel alignments, it will not be surprising—it will simply confirm what was evident from the outset.

The question has always been straightforward: can these individuals remain under one structure long enough to build something coherent? The answer is still unfolding, but its direction is becoming increasingly clear.