Impact of Public Leadership is in the Streets Not in Statistics
The Impact of Public Leadership is in the Streets, Not in The Statistics
A Critical Review of Governance Impact of APC Government since 2015
By Charles Ndukwe Esq.,
In 2015, the All Progressives Congress (APC) came to power on the promise of Change.
The promise was compelling. Nigeria would become more secure. Corruption would be confronted. The economy would be better managed. Jobs would be created. Public institutions would be strengthened, and ordinary Nigerians would experience a government that worked for them.
The APC presented itself as the alternative to the administration of Goodluck Jonathan, which it criticised as incompetent, corrupt and clueless.
Eleven years later, with Muhammadu Buhari’s eight years in office followed by Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration and its Renewed Hope agenda, Nigerians are entitled to ask a fundamental question:
What has changed in the lives of ordinary Nigerians, and how does the reality compare with the promises that brought APC to power?
This is not a question that can be answered by government statistics alone. Nor can it be answered by the rhetoric of opposition politicians. It requires an honest examination of economic performance, security, public integrity, political freedom, the management of public resources and the everyday experiences of citizens.
Statistics matter. They can demonstrate progress, expose failures and correct misleading impressions. But statistics become an instrument of political evasion when they are deployed to dismiss the hardship of the very people whose welfare government exists to protect.
The verdict must therefore be informed by both measurable evidence and the lived experiences of Nigerians.
1. THE POLITICAL MARRIAGE OF 2015
The APC alliance of 2015 brought together political forces with different histories, constituencies and ideological traditions. Buhari’s political image was associated with discipline, anti-corruption and a conservative social outlook. Tinubu brought a different political tradition, a substantial political organisation in the South-West and a reputation for strategic coalition-building.
The alliance was celebrated by many supporters as a masterstroke of political strategy. Governor Rochas Okorocha and other political actors helped promote APC’s appeal beyond its traditional strongholds. The party’s ability to unite previously competing political interests became a central part of its electoral success.
But a question that deserved more attention then remains relevant today: what was the alliance fundamentally about?
Was it a convergence around a clearly articulated programme for national transformation, or was the overriding objective to acquire political power?
Political alliances are legitimate instruments of democratic competition. Parties do not have to agree on every ideological question before they can cooperate. The difficulty arises when the pursuit of power takes precedence over the principles politicians claim to defend.
The religious dimension of the political debate also deserves careful examination. Buhari had publicly expressed support for the fuller implementation of Sharia in the past, while during the 2015 campaign he denied having a personal agenda to Islamise Nigeria and affirmed the supremacy of the Constitution. Both aspects of that record belong in an honest account of the political context.
The point is not to attribute motives without evidence. It is to ask whether the political partners reconciled their differences through a transparent, coherent and durable national vision.
Many celebrated the alliance as political foresight. Some considered themselves men who had seen tomorrow. Yet the subsequent history of political alliances, rivalries and shifting loyalties has demonstrated how difficult it is to separate political strategy from personal ambition.
The declaration Emi Lokan [it is my turn] has since become a powerful expression in the national debate about political entitlement and ambition.
The question Nigerians must ask is whether the acquisition of power was treated as the ultimate objective, or whether power was understood as an instrument for delivering a defined public good.
2. WHEN YESTERDAY’S STRATEGY BECOMES TODAY’S OFFENCE
Today, some of the conservative political forces associated with the 2015 alliance are in conflict with the President.
His defenders have offered an interpretation: these forces are opposing him because his policies threaten their political interests and may diminish their influence. According to this argument, opposition from powerful political interests is evidence that the President is doing something right.
That interpretation may be valid in particular circumstances. Political interests can resist reforms that threaten established advantages. But the argument creates an obvious question of consistency.
If the 2015 political marriage was a brilliant strategy despite ideological differences, why must comparable arrangements involving Atiku Abubakar, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso or other opposition figures automatically be condemned?
Why should a political alliance be celebrated as pragmatism when it benefits one side and denounced as dangerous opportunism when it benefits another?
If concerns about religious politics, ethnicity, constitutional government or ideological commitments are legitimate, they must be applied consistently. The public should examine the actual statements, records, programmes and commitments of every political actor.
No political alliance should receive automatic approval merely because its participants belong to our preferred party. Nor should another be rejected simply because it strengthens the opposition. The proper test of an alliance is its principles, policies, constitutional commitments and consequences for the country, and not the political identity of its participants.
Those who celebrated the Buhari-Tinubu alliance in 2015 must explain the principles that justified it. Those who oppose other alliances today must demonstrate why their objections rest on consistent principles rather than partisan preference. Otherwise, political strategy is merely a flattering name for the conduct of our own side.
3. FROM CHANGE TO RENEWED HOPE: WHAT DO THE PEOPLE EXPERIENCE?
APC’s original promises concerned matters that Nigerians encounter every day: food, employment, security, electricity, healthcare, transportation and the integrity of public institutions. On these issues, the evidence presents a mixed economic picture but a deeply troubling picture of public confidence and household welfare.
Afrobarometer’s 2025 reporting found that 93% of surveyed Nigerians believed the country was going in the wrong direction, 88% rated the national economic condition as fairly bad or very bad, and 74% reported poor personal living conditions. These are public-opinion findings, not a comprehensive assessment of every government programme. Nevertheless, they demonstrate the depth of dissatisfaction among the respondents surveyed.
The World Bank has also reported macroeconomic improvements while warning that poverty, inadequate job creation and infrastructure gaps remain serious challenges. These two realities must be acknowledged together.
The economy may grow while many households become poorer in real terms. Government revenue may rise while essential public services remain inadequate. Reforms may be economically defensible in principle while imposing severe immediate costs on citizens.
The removal of petrol subsidies and foreign-exchange reforms under Tinubu have changed Nigeria’s economic environment. The government can point to improvements in selected fiscal and macroeconomic indicators. But ordinary Nigerians must also be able to assess the consequences for their purchasing power, businesses, employment and access to essential services.
The question is not simply whether the economy has changed. It has. The question is whether the changes have produced sufficiently broad improvements in the lives of the people.
A government cannot claim the full benefit of economic growth while treating the poverty of its citizens as an irrelevant statistic.
4. POVERTY: THE TEST OF ECONOMIC REFORM
For the family struggling to afford food, pay rent, transport children to school and meet medical expenses, the principal economic indicator is not the growth rate announced at a press conference. It is whether the family can live with dignity.
The World Bank’s October 2026 country assessment continues to identify widespread poverty and weak job creation as major Nigerian challenges. Its estimates place more than 60% of Nigerians below the national poverty line in 2025.
Such figures demand serious reflection from a party that came to power promising economic transformation. The appropriate response is not to deny the possibility of macroeconomic improvement. It is to insist that economic stabilisation must translate into improved welfare.
How many Nigerians have obtained productive employment? How has real household income changed? Can workers’ earnings keep pace with the cost of essential goods? Are small businesses expanding or contracting? Are more families escaping poverty, and at what rate?
These are questions of public accountability.
If the benefits of reform remain concentrated while millions struggle with the immediate costs, government must explain what measures are being taken to broaden those benefits and protect vulnerable households.
The purpose of economic reform is not to improve the appearance of national accounts. It is to build an economy in which people can work, produce, prosper and live securely.
5. SECURITY: THE PROMISE THAT CANNOT BE REPLACED BY ASSURANCES
Security was one of APC’s most important promises in 2015.
Eleven years later, Nigeria continues to confront kidnapping, banditry, insurgency and attacks on communities. The geographical distribution and intensity of these threats vary, and an honest assessment must recognise successful operations where they can be demonstrated.
But the persistence of widespread insecurity remains a major national concern.
Afrobarometer’s 2024 findings reported that 79% of surveyed Nigerians considered kidnapping a serious national problem. The survey also found that 63% said they or a family member had felt unsafe at home or in their neighbourhood during the preceding year. These findings reveal the scale of the public’s concern.
The government must be judged by whether communities are protected, kidnappings are prevented, criminal networks are disrupted, victims are rescued and citizens can travel and conduct their businesses without persistent fear.
Security is not merely a military statistic. It is a condition of everyday life.
A farmer who cannot safely reach a farm, a trader who fears travelling to a market, a family that cannot sleep peacefully and a community that repeatedly appeals for protection are all experiencing the consequences of insecurity.
The government must therefore explain what has worked, what has failed and what is being done differently. No political slogan can substitute for the protection of human life.
6. CORRUPTION: THE CREDIBILITY OF THE ANTI-CORRUPTION PROMISE
APC’s political identity was built substantially around the fight against corruption.
That promise created an expectation that public office holders would be held accountable, public money would be protected and investigations would not depend on political affiliation.
Public confidence is weakened when citizens suspect that the political connections of an individual determine the speed, seriousness or outcome of an investigation.
It is not enough to prosecute selected officials and announce the recovery of selected assets. A credible anti-corruption system must apply consistent standards to everyone. Allegations against opposition politicians must be investigated where evidence warrants it. Allegations involving members of the ruling establishment must receive the same treatment.
An accusation is not proof of guilt. Due process must be respected. But due process must not become a convenient excuse for indefinite silence or inaction. The public deserves to know which investigations have been completed, what findings were reached, what funds were recovered and what reforms were introduced to prevent a recurrence.
The real test of an anti-corruption policy is not how effectively it damages political opponents. It is whether it protects public resources and strengthens the integrity of government.
7. THE FCT LAND QUESTION: DOES CITIZENSHIP JUSTIFY PREFERENTIAL ACCESS?
The controversy surrounding land allocations in the Federal Capital Territory illustrates the distinction between a citizen’s rights and the administration of public assets.
In July 2025, the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, defended his children’s right to apply for land as Nigerian citizens and denied the alleged allocations of thousands of hectares in Maitama and Asokoro. The Minister’s denial must be recorded fairly. The allegations should not be treated as established facts merely because they have been publicly discussed.
But the underlying question remains important.
Being a Nigerian citizen gives a person the right to seek land through lawful procedures. It does not automatically establish an entitlement to preferential allocation of valuable public land. Not every Nigerian who applies for land receives it. That is why the governing criteria, the application process and the treatment of competing applicants matter.
The public-interest questions are straightforward:
– Were applications submitted, and by whom?
– What exact parcels and sizes were involved?
– What criteria governed the applications and decisions?
– Were the required fees paid and the relevant procedures followed?
– Were comparable applicants treated equally?
– Were the allocations independently reviewed where conflicts of interest arose?
Where a public office holder discusses land applications involving members of his family, transparency is especially important. This does not establish wrongdoing, but it makes independent verification essential to public confidence. The issue is not whether the Minister’s children are citizens. The issue is whether the public land administration system is fair, transparent and accountable.
Citizenship should not become a substitute for answering questions about public assets.
8. NNPC: WHEN AUDIT FINDINGS MUST LEAD TO ANSWERS
The Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited is too important to the nation’s finances for serious audit findings to be treated as routine paperwork.
In September 2025, Premium Times reported on Auditor-General findings concerning questionable NNPC transactions, including more than US$51 million in payments and settlements requiring further explanation or reconciliation, alongside other financial irregularities and inadequate supporting documentation.
The findings related principally to earlier financial years, including 2020 and 2021. They do not establish that President Tinubu personally participated in wrongdoing. But they raise a fundamental accountability question.
What happened after the findings were published? Which transactions were satisfactorily explained? Which amounts were recovered where recovery was warranted? Which matters were referred for further investigation? What action was taken by the relevant oversight bodies? What became of the recommendations to the National Assembly’s Public Accounts Committees?
These are questions that should have verifiable answers, particularly as the President squares up as the Substantive Minister of Petroleum Resources.
The government should publish the status of significant audit queries and explain what remedial action has been taken. Where public money has been lost, the responsible parties should be identified through lawful processes and recovery pursued where justified. An audit report is not a conviction. Equally, an audit query should not disappear into bureaucratic silence.
The public must be able to follow the trail from the identification of an irregularity to its resolution. That is what accountability means.
9. BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION: APPROPRIATION IS NOT DELIVERY
Another question concerns the implementation of federal budgets across the 2023, 2024 and 2025 budget cycles.
The claim that overall implementation remained below 75% across all three years should not be accepted without comparing the official reports using the same definition and reporting period. Capital expenditure, recurrent expenditure, releases and utilisation are different measures and must not be confused.
But the broader accountability question is unavoidable.
A budget is not simply an authorisation to spend public money. It is a programme intended to deliver roads, hospitals, schools, security infrastructure, electricity projects and other public services. There are important differences between what is appropriated, what is released, what is spent and what is actually delivered.
A government cannot claim the full benefit of an approved capital budget if the projects remain unfinished or the promised services never materialise.
For each budget year, Nigerians deserve a clear account of the amount appropriated, the amount actually spent, the proportion of capital expenditure utilised, the projects completed and the reasons for delays or non-delivery.
The Budget Office’s quarterly implementation reports provide a starting point for this comparison.
Where implementation is low, the government should explain why. Where projects are delayed, it should identify the causes and the revised timelines. Where money has been spent without the expected result, the relevant institutions must investigate.
Budget performance should be measured by delivery, not announcements. The purpose of public expenditure is to improve public welfare. Anything less requires explanation.
10. THE PRESIDENT’S US DRUG LEGAL HISTORY: FACTS, DISCLOSURE AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCE
The controversy surrounding Tinubu’s historical US drug-trafficking legal records is another subject that requires a careful distinction between documented facts and unproved allegations.
In 1993, US authorities obtained a civil forfeiture order concerning approximately US$460,000 in an account held in Tinubu’s name in proceedings connected to a Chicago narcotics investigation. A civil forfeiture order is not the same as a criminal conviction. It is therefore inaccurate to describe that order, by itself, as a conviction of Tinubu for drug trafficking.
In subsequent years, the matter became the subject of litigation seeking access to historical US government records. The later proceedings concerned disclosure of records, including arguments about privacy, confidential information and law-enforcement protections.
Tinubu’s efforts to protect information from disclosure and his lawyers’ arguments in the proceedings are matters that must be evaluated within their legal context. Seeking protection for records does not, by itself, establish criminal guilt. Nevertheless, the historical forfeiture and the subsequent disclosure dispute are legitimate subjects of public-interest scrutiny, particularly because the individual concerned became President of Nigeria.
The appropriate questions are what the records establish, what remains undisclosed, what legal protections apply and whether the public debate accurately reflects the judicial record. It is equally important to reject two extremes: presenting a civil forfeiture as a criminal conviction, and dismissing every legitimate question about the records as political persecution.
Public confidence requires accuracy, transparency within the law and a willingness to address material questions without substituting political rhetoric for evidence.
A President’s supporters may disagree with the conclusions drawn by critics. But they should engage with the documented record rather than pretending that no issue exists. One would have expected a presidential support for the disclosure of the FBI’s records to establish his innocence. Until that is done, one can not deny the public the right to draw reasonable inferences from the President’s doggedness in frustrating full disclosure.
11. THE OPPOSITION, POLITICAL ADVERTISING AND THE DEMOCRATIC SPACE
A functioning democracy requires an opposition that can organise, communicate its ideas, campaign lawfully and challenge the government.
Where allegations arise that opposition parties have been restricted from displaying billboards or conducting political advertising in states controlled by particular parties, the facts must be established. Who imposed the restrictions? What legal authority was invoked? Were the same rules applied to the ruling party? Were lawful remedies available?
The same evidential standard must apply to claims that police were deployed to protect political billboards while communities threatened by attacks struggled to obtain adequate security.
But the underlying concern is legitimate: public institutions must not be perceived as serving partisan interests at the expense of the public. Protecting political property and protecting human life are not necessarily competing responsibilities. Yet where citizens perceive that political symbols receive greater attention than vulnerable communities, the government must explain its priorities.
Reports of people tearing or defacing political posters should likewise be assessed in context. Such incidents are not a reliable national opinion poll, and unlawful destruction of property is not a substitute for democratic expression. Nevertheless, visible public anger should prompt serious inquiry into its causes rather than automatic dismissal as the work of political enemies.
No ruling party owns the political space. No government owns the police. Public institutions belong to the people and must serve them impartially.
12. WHEN POLITICAL DEFENCE BECOMES AN EXERCISE IN SELECTIVE REASONING
One of the most damaging features of our political culture is the tendency to apply different standards depending on who benefits.
When our preferred candidate enters a political alliance, we call it strategy. When an opponent does the same, we call it opportunism.
When our party compromises on ideology, we call it pragmatism. When another party compromises, we call it hypocrisy.
When our leader’s policies are criticised, we demand patience. When another leader’s policies are criticised, we demand immediate accountability.
When allegations concern our political allies, we insist on due process. When allegations concern our opponents, we sometimes rush to judgment.
This is not principled political engagement. It is partisan loyalty masquerading as principle. Due process must be respected in every case. But the demand for evidence must not become a selective shield against accountability.
The same standards should apply to Buhari, Tinubu, Atiku, Kwankwaso and every other public figure. Political alliances must be examined by the policies they produce. Public officials must be judged by their conduct. Financial allegations must be investigated on their evidence. Economic claims must be tested against outcomes.
The political identity of the person involved should not determine the standard of scrutiny. If a supporter celebrated the 2015 alliance as a masterstroke but rejects every comparable alliance involving the opposition without applying the same principles, the supporter owes the public an explanation.
Otherwise, the defence is not of a principle. It is of a political interest.
13. THE DANGER OF DEFENDING A LEADER AT ALL COSTS
Blessed may be the leader whose followers remain loyal through difficult times. But a nation is endangered when loyalty becomes a substitute for sound judgment.
There is a difference between defending a leader against false accusations and defending every decision he makes. There is a difference between recognising the difficulties of governance and excusing persistent failures. There is a difference between giving a reform time to work and refusing to ask whether it is working.
And there is a difference between loyalty to a political party and loyalty to Nigeria. When followers reinterpret every failure as success, every criticism as sabotage and every opposing view as ignorance, they deprive the leader of honest feedback.
A leader surrounded by people who cannot acknowledge mistakes may win political arguments while losing public confidence.
A responsible supporter should be able to say when a policy is failing, when a promise remains unfulfilled, when an official owes the public an explanation and when the available evidence does not justify a claim. That is not betrayal. It is responsible citizenship.
A President whose followers defend every weakness may appear politically protected. But a government deprived of honest criticism is less able to correct its mistakes.
The greatest service a supporter can render to a leader is not to defend the indefensible. It is to insist that the leader fulfils the obligations of public office.
14. THE VERDICT: WHAT HAS CHANGE DELIVERED?
After eleven years of APC rule, the record must be examined without partisan blindness.
There are macroeconomic indicators that have improved. Some reforms address longstanding structural problems. Particular infrastructure projects and security operations may have produced genuine benefits.
These should be acknowledged wherever evidence supports them. But those improvements coexist with widespread poverty, severe household pressures, inadequate job creation, continuing insecurity, infrastructure gaps and deep public dissatisfaction.
The record must therefore be assessed on its full merits. On the economy, the test is whether growth translates into better living standards. On security, the test is whether citizens and communities are safer. On corruption, the test is whether credible allegations are investigated and public resources protected without political discrimination. On public expenditure, the test is whether appropriated money produces completed projects and essential services. On democracy, the test is whether political competition is fair and public institutions remain impartial. On leadership, the test is whether the President and his administration are willing to answer legitimate questions with evidence.
The responsibility must also be allocated fairly between the Buhari administration, the Tinubu administration, state governments, the National Assembly and other institutions according to their powers and decisions. Eleven years of APC rule does not mean that every national problem originated with APC. It does mean that the party must account for its own record in federal government.
The Change campaign created expectations. Renewed Hope renewed them. The people are entitled to ask whether those expectations have been met.
15. CONCLUSION: NIGERIA BELONGS TO ITS PEOPLE
The tragedy is not simply that politicians form alliances to win elections. Political alliances are a normal feature of democratic competition.
The tragedy is when political ambition is celebrated as strategy, ideological inconsistency is excused as pragmatism, and citizens are expected to bear the consequences while political defenders insist that the leader can do no wrong.
The tragedy is when yesterday’s political marriage is celebrated as wisdom but today’s comparable arrangements are condemned without a consistent examination of principle.
The tragedy is when the defence of a political image appears more urgent than the protection of citizens.
The tragedy is when allegations concerning public money are reduced to partisan quarrels instead of being followed through to verifiable conclusions.
And the tragedy is when loyalty to a President becomes more important than loyalty to the truth.
The verdict is in the street, but it must be tested against evidence.
Statistics matter. They help us understand the economy, identify progress and expose failure. But they cannot be used to erase the experiences of citizens who struggle to afford food, secure employment, obtain reliable electricity, access healthcare or travel without fear.
Nor should public anger be treated as infallible. It must be examined alongside reliable data, documented achievements, credible failures and the actual consequences of government policy.
The ultimate question is whether Nigerians can live more securely, earn a decent living, afford essential goods, access reliable public services and exercise their democratic rights. No political slogan can answer that question on behalf of the government. No political defender can answer it merely by attacking the opposition. No President should be exempt from answering it.
Nigeria belongs to its people, not to APC, not to the opposition, and not to any President. The duty of every citizen is to hold power accountable, whoever occupies it. And the duty of every political defender is to remember that loyalty to a leader must never become disloyalty to the truth.
Change must be measured by the lives it improves. Renewed Hope must be measured by the hope it makes real. And leadership must ultimately be judged by what it delivers to the people.
Charles Ndukwe is an Abuja-based Legal Practitioner
