By Sade Adewale

In the ongoing discourse over Nigeria’s political structure and national unity, two prominent voices, Mr. Ifedayo Akinsoyinu and Mr. Peter Olagookun—have presented sharply contrasting views on the proposed rotational presidency bill, currently a subject of heated debate in the House of Representatives.

Ifedayo Akinsoyinu, a former member of the Ondo State House of Assembly, passionately advocated for enshrining rotational presidency in Nigeria’s constitution. He described the House’s recent rejection of the bill as a missed opportunity to address long-standing concerns among marginalized ethnic groups.

“In a country as diverse as Nigeria, the only fair path to unity and peaceful coexistence is a rotational presidency,” Akinsoyinu said. “Without this, dangerous agitations rooted in ethnic nationalism, like IPOB and ESN, will continue to threaten national stability.”

He cited Nigeria’s historical imbalances, including the controversial 1963 census, as foundational flaws that continue to fuel distrust and uneven representation. According to him, only a constitutional provision—beyond internal party arrangements—can guarantee equity in leadership succession.

Rejecting the argument that some regions lack competent leaders, Akinsoyinu insisted that “every ethnic group has capable individuals who can lead Nigeria.” He cited the emergence of Goodluck Jonathan as proof that effective leadership exists beyond the traditionally dominant regions.

He also advocated for local government autonomy, condemning governors for frustrating attempts by the federal government to grant local councils financial and administrative independence. “The NGF’s reluctance stems from their desire to control local councils. But NASS is right—local governments must be autonomous to deliver real impact at the grassroots,” he said.

Akinsoyinu called for a national reawakening based on the recommendations of the 2014 National Conference. “It’s time to revisit the Confab resolutions. Review, revise, and implement. That is the way forward.”

However, Mr. Peter Olagookun, Chairman of the New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) in Ondo State, offered a dissenting perspective. He argued that rotational presidency, if embedded in the constitution, would undermine democracy rather than strengthen it.

“Leadership should emerge through democratic processes, not by zoning,” Olagookun stated. “The constitution already allows any qualified Nigerian to contest the presidency. Party policies may adopt rotation internally, but making it a constitutional mandate is unnecessary and could be counterproductive.”

While Olagookun aligned with Akinsoyinu on the need for local government empowerment, he emphasized proper oversight rather than autonomy alone. He proposed that state Auditors-General should be empowered to monitor local council finances and ensure accountability.

“The local government is the closest government to the people,” he said. “Chairmen should be allowed to execute developmental projects, but with strong oversight to prevent mismanagement.”

Olagookun also reaffirmed his belief in the federal character principle as a sufficient tool for equitable representation. “If properly followed, the principle can promote fairness and reduce regional agitation,” he said.

As Nigeria continues to navigate its complex diversity, the contrasting views of these political figures underscore the ongoing national struggle to balance equity with democracy between structural reform and constitutional fidelity. Whether through rotational leadership or strengthened institutional frameworks, the debate highlights the urgency of charting a sustainable course for Nigeria’s political evolution.