EDITORIAL: Wike’s Rainbow Coalition: Political Reality Is Not a Permanent Mandate

There is something troubling about the confidence with which political actors sometimes announce the permanence of their own political arrangements, as though the democratic process were a private estate over which they possess exclusive rights. The declaration by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, that the Rainbow Coalition has come to stay and that “nothing anybody can do about it” is one such assertion that deserves to be challenged, not merely as political rhetoric but as a statement that raises important questions about the nature of democracy, the limits of political influence and the sovereignty of the electorate.

Wike’s declaration, reported by Channels Television on October 13, 2026, appears intended to communicate determination, project political strength and reassure supporters that the coalition backing President Bola Tinubu’s re-election bid in 2027 is neither temporary nor vulnerable to opposition. Yet, in a democracy, no coalition can legitimately claim permanence simply because its promoters are confident, influential or strategically positioned within the political establishment. Political alliances survive by retaining relevance, earning public confidence and demonstrating that they serve the interests of the people. They do not acquire an irrevocable mandate through forceful declarations.

Wike is entitled to his political convictions. He is entitled to mobilise support for Tinubu, persuade political associates to join his coalition and argue that the president deserves another term. What he cannot reasonably expect is that Nigerians should accept the durability or effectiveness of his political project merely because he has pronounced it irreversible. The ballot, not the boast, remains the ultimate test.

A Coalition Is Not A Permanent Institution

The first weakness in Wike’s position is its apparent assumption that a coalition, once assembled, becomes an enduring political reality beyond the reach of changing circumstances. Nigerian political history offers abundant evidence to the contrary.

Political alliances in this country have frequently been formed around immediate electoral calculations, the distribution of influence, the pursuit of power or the shared determination to prevent a rival from winning. Some have achieved their objectives; others have unravelled under the weight of conflicting ambitions, ideological differences, leadership disputes and disagreements over the allocation of political benefits.

The alliance that brought together opposition parties to form the All Progressives Congress before the 2015 general election demonstrated that coalitions could fundamentally alter Nigeria’s political landscape. But it also illustrated the complexity of managing diverse political interests under a common platform. Even within established parties, disagreements over presidential succession, party leadership, appointments and electoral strategy have repeatedly exposed the fragility of political unity.

The lesson is straightforward: political coalitions are not permanent merely because their founders declare them so. Their survival depends on the continued convergence of interests and their capacity to respond to changing political realities.

The Rainbow Coalition may indeed remain influential throughout the 2027 election cycle. It may attract more political figures and contribute meaningfully to Tinubu’s campaign. But these are possibilities to be demonstrated, not certainties that can be established by ministerial proclamation.

Indeed, the more emphatically a political leader insists that nothing can undermine an alliance, the more reasonable it becomes to ask what the alliance is built upon, what sustains its members and whether it possesses a common programme beyond support for a particular presidential candidate.

Is it an alliance of conviction, or one of convenience? Is its strength rooted in a shared commitment to national development, institutional reform and public welfare, or principally in the calculations of politicians seeking to preserve access to power? These questions are not hostile to the coalition. They are essential to assessing its democratic value.

Wike Cannot Substitute His Will For The People’s Choice

The phrase “nothing anybody can do about it” is particularly problematic because it can be interpreted as suggesting that the coalition’s political future is already settled, irrespective of what other political actors or Nigerian voters may decide.

Perhaps Wike intended no more than to express confidence. Political leaders routinely employ emphatic language to energise supporters, discourage opponents and create an impression of momentum. Nevertheless, political rhetoric must be assessed against democratic principles, especially when it concerns an election that will determine the country’s leadership for another four years.

No political arrangement can legitimately place itself above the electorate. A coalition may organise, campaign, persuade and negotiate, but it cannot predetermine the outcome of an election. It must compete for votes and accept that voters retain the freedom to reject its candidates.

The 2027 presidential election belongs to Nigerians, not Wike, Tinubu, the Rainbow Coalition, the All Progressives Congress or any opposition alliance. Its outcome must reflect the freely expressed preferences of eligible voters under a credible electoral process.

That principle also applies to the opposition. No opposition figure should claim that a particular candidate is certain to win, that a coalition cannot be defeated or that Nigerians have already made their choice before voting begins. Democracy requires humility from both incumbents and challengers because political authority is conferred by the electorate, not self-awarded by campaign organisations.

Wike’s position would therefore be more persuasive if he presented the Rainbow Coalition as a platform that intends to earn Nigerians’ confidence rather than an arrangement whose permanence is supposedly beyond challenge.

A coalition that trusts its programme, its record and its candidate should welcome democratic competition. It should not need to suggest that its political future has become untouchable.