Tinubu and the Politics of Sacrifice: The Pattern That Shaped His Rise to Power
By Olumide Bajulaiye
Nigeria’s political history is filled with ambitious men, but very few politicians have built a reputation around strategic sacrifice the way President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has done. Whether one agrees with his politics or not, one recurring narrative around Tinubu’s journey is his willingness to suspend personal ambition in favour of a broader political objective — a trait that many of his loyalists now describe as the foundation of his enduring influence.
The story often begins with the aborted Third Republic in 1993. At the time, Tinubu was one of the rising stars in the Senate and reportedly enjoyed strong support among senators who wanted him as Senate President. But there was a political complication: Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola, popularly known as MKO Abiola, was contesting for the presidency under the Social Democratic Party (SDP), and both men were from the South-West.
In Nigeria’s delicate ethnic and regional political balancing structure, having both the Senate President and the President emerge from the same region could have triggered resistance within the power establishment. According to this political interpretation, Tinubu understood the larger stakes and stepped aside, choosing instead to support Abiola’s presidential ambition rather than pursue his own legislative leadership dream.
That decision became one of the earliest examples used by Tinubu’s supporters to define his political philosophy: long-term influence over immediate gratification.
Rather than emerge as Senate President, Tinubu became Chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriation and Finance, while Abiola went on to win the June 12, 1993 presidential election — an election widely regarded as Nigeria’s freest and fairest. When the military annulled the result, Tinubu remained one of the prominent pro-democracy figures who resisted the regime and aligned with the struggle to validate Abiola’s mandate.
Years later, under Tinubu’s political influence, June 12 was officially recognised as Nigeria’s Democracy Day, while Abiola was posthumously honoured with the Grand Commander of the Federal Republic (GCFR), the highest national honour reserved for presidents. To Tinubu’s admirers, this was not just symbolism; it was the completion of a political and moral commitment that started in 1993.
The same pattern appeared again in 2014 ahead of the 2015 presidential election. At that time, Muhammadu Buhari had suffered repeated electoral defeats and openly expressed frustration about his political future. Tinubu, already a dominant force in opposition politics, became central to the coalition that eventually birthed the All Progressives Congress (APC) as a viable national platform.
The Tinubu-Buhari alliance reshaped Nigeria’s political landscape. Tinubu reportedly subordinated several personal and strategic interests to strengthen Buhari’s candidacy and unify opposition blocs across regions. The gamble was risky. Political observers at the time questioned whether Tinubu was giving away too much influence without guarantees. Yet the alliance succeeded, ending the Peoples Democratic Party’s 16-year hold on power.
Supporters of Tinubu now argue that 2023 represented the political “return on investment” for decades of calculated sacrifice. After years of building alliances and supporting others, Tinubu finally secured the presidency himself.
Within that framework, the role of Femi Gbajabiamila is often cited as another continuation of the “Tinubu political doctrine.” Gbajabiamila, a long-time ally of Tinubu, stepped away from speakership calculations during the presidential transition period and aligned fully with Tinubu’s presidential ambition. To loyalists, this mirrored the same political discipline Tinubu himself displayed in earlier years.
The broader argument emerging from this narrative is that successful party politics is rarely built on personal ambition alone. It depends on timing, coalition-building, deferred gratification, and the ability to convince followers that temporary sacrifice can produce long-term collective gains.
Critics may dismiss this interpretation as political myth-making or image management. They argue that every major politician makes strategic compromises when necessary and that sacrifice in politics is often tied to eventual reward. But even critics acknowledge that Tinubu’s career demonstrates an unusual ability to build loyalty networks that survive across decades and political transitions.
In today’s political climate — where defections, internal betrayals, and immediate personal interests dominate many party structures — Tinubu’s supporters believe the missing ingredient among younger politicians is patience and strategic sacrifice. Many want the influence, structure, and authority associated with the Jagaban political brand, but few appear willing to delay their ambitions long enough to build enduring political capital.
Whether viewed as master strategist, kingmaker, or power broker, Tinubu’s political journey continues to reinforce one enduring lesson in Nigerian politics: ambition may win elections, but sacrifice often builds political legacy.
Olumide Bajulaiye is the Publisher, Daily Dispatch Newspaper.
