Mr. President’s “all is fair in politics” represents a negative rhetorical shift in Nigeria’s political landscape. It attempts to normalize political survival at the expense of institutional integrity, constitutional boundaries, and ethical governance. Rather than projecting confidence, this aggressive stance reveals a deep-seated apprehension regarding the administration’s political standing as it looks toward the next election cycle. The president has subtly released the spirit of violence and disorder toward the 2027 election, and this pulls at the heart of Nigeria’s continued existence as a political entity. Nigerians should be worried.
By Promise Adiele
President Bola Tinubu recently set Nigeria’s political spaces on fire by declaring that “all is fair in politics”. According to the president, killing, cheating, lying, manipulation, subterfuge, and sundry criminal indulgences are permissible in politics. The lines of war were unmistakable. Lacking the linguistic, literary, or colloquial scintillation, the president spewed the phrase in the most unpresidential manner. The original version of the expression was first captured in 1578 by English writer John Lyly in his romantic novel Euphues: Anatomy of Wit. It states “the rules of fair play do not apply in love and war”. In 1604, Spanish writer Miguel De Cervantes gave another version of the expression in his novel Don Quixote. It reads “Love and war are the same thing, and stratagems and polity are as allowable in one as in the other”. In 1696, the exact phrasing was delivered by English writer Sir John Vanbrugh in his comic play The Relapse, or Virtue in Danger. It reads “Tho’ this was a confounded lie, my friend, all is fair in love and war”. In 1850, another English author echoed the same sentiment in his novel Frank Fairlegh. It says “All’s fair in love and war”.
I am curious about the relationship between love and war and why these early writers consistently juxtaposed the two concepts. Is there a relationship between love and war? Is love, war and war, love? No doubt, they present a dialectic of innumerable possibilities, but their engagement would have to wait for another day. However, none of the writers above added politics to the mix. Therefore, it must be on record that in 2026, President Bola Tinubu of Nigeria coined a new version of the expression by declaring that “All is fair in politics”. Before we go on, let us attempt to disambiguate the expression to reveal its underlying meaning for the benefit of those who struggle with the written word or whose perception of it is coloured by parochial sentiments.
READ ALSO:
‘Nobody can rig us out here’ – Gov Adeleke assures Osun voters
The operating phrase there is “all is fair…” Whether we input love, war, or politics is immaterial. It means that in war, love or politics, acceptable behaviour, rules, decency, or politeness do not apply. It connotes a sense of thuggery, brigandage, and other kinds of underhand practices as acceptable methods for prevailing in a contest to win or emerge victorious. The expression disregards fairness and equity. It justifies submerging a country, a generation or plunging humanity into a tragic abyss on the road to victory. In politics, the expression suspends the constitution but empowers criminal tendencies as an immediate vehicle for victory. This is the mindset Mr. President recently suggested when he hosted the leadership of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria (CBCN) at the State House, Abuja. By that declaration, the president subtly drew the lines of war between himself and Nigerians toward the 2027 general elections. In very simple, layman’s language, the president was actually saying that he will do everything illegal to win the 2027 presidential election irrespective of the wishes of Nigerians.
While hosting the revered clergymen, Mr. President was expected to demonstrate the statesmanship and soothing reassurance required by a country navigating severe economic hardship and structural adjustments. Regrettably, he chose to invoke a fundamentally negative maxim – “All is fair in politics.” That expression confirms Nigerians’ growing concerns about brute force, dictatorship, and the integrity of the 2027 general elections. Throwing decorum and decency to the winds, the president adopted an aggressive, combative approach, vowing to deal with his opponents in the war of 2027. According to him, “we will wrestle each other to the finishing point”. He also declared that he will not offer his opponents a “red carpet”.
Of all the president’s statements, I am more concerned about the “all is fair in politics” submission. It summarily destabilizes the rules of genuine political engagement. Besides redefining democratic competition, it represents much more than standard political audacity. It serves as a primitive validation of a win-at-all-costs political culture. The declaration effectively exposes a man who is afraid and therefore ready to do anything, even if it means setting the country ablaze, to remain in power. It signals a dangerous trend toward constitutional erosion and institutional capture in Nigerian politics, while concurrently revealing a mid-term desperation for an administration constantly challenged by legitimacy.
If we must understand democracy as a civilized, rule-bound system that relies on a delicate balance of constitutional guardrails, electoral laws, and ethical norms, then the president’s declaration is inconsistent with equitable democratic behaviour. When the custodian of the constitution adopts a Machiavellian tactic where the end justifies the means, it signals the weakening of the structural boundaries that safeguard the country. As though that was not enough, the president brazenly defended the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), asserting its absolute neutrality and dismissing opposition concerns as the cries of those “afraid of their own shadows.”
The credibility of the electoral umpire is severely dented when the leader of the ruling party acts as its primary spokesperson. Under the banner of “all is fair,” the appointment of partisan loyalists to electoral boards, the manipulation of security apparatuses, and the compromise of electronic result transmission systems are suggestive of sinister intentions. These actions are dangerously reframed as legitimate political strategies rather than subversions of the democratic process. If the presidency views politics as a lawless arena of survival, then weaponizing state infrastructure to achieve total state capture becomes an inevitable outcome.
Nigeria’s democracy has survived for over a quarter of a century through collective commitment and gradual building of democratic norms. The peaceful transition of power in 2015 established a precedent that political victory must be pursued within the confines of electoral laws and in the spirit of sportsmanship. The president’s assertion threatens to reverse these democratic gains completely. When a sitting president tells the citizens that the political arena lacks ethical boundaries, it sends a dangerous signal down the entire political hierarchy. Governors, local government chairmen, and grassroots party actors are officially granted permission to employ whatever measures necessary to secure power. In the complex socio-political landscape of Nigeria, this approach directly translates to increased political violence, intensified voter suppression, and the aggressive deployment of state-sponsored thuggery.
If “all is fair in politics,” then the ballot box is no longer a sacred instrument for the choice of citizens. It becomes a trophy to be seized by degenerate minds with the greatest capacity for coercion. This scenario alienates the electorate, leading to widespread voter apathy and a general disillusionment with the democratic process. When citizens realize that the rules of the game are malleable and heavily skewed in favour of the incumbent, they stop participating, thereby eroding the foundational consent upon which a democratic government claims its authority. Beyond its broader systemic implications, President Tinubu’s combative rhetoric reveals intense vulnerability and desperation within his administration. In civilized climes, popular leaders rely on their policy achievements, economic stability, and public goodwill to secure a mandate for a second term. They do not resort to threats, aggression, defensive posturing against civil society, and the hounding of religious leaders shortly before the next general election.
Recognizing that a hungry and dissatisfied electorate is highly unpredictable, the presidency appears to be shifting its focus away from building consensus and toward preparing for a high-stakes political battle. The vow to “wrestle to the finishing point” reflects a realization that an honest, transparent campaign based purely on performance metrics may prove insufficient. The administration’s focus on political survival, even as the country faces security crises, underscores a concerning reality – the executive branch is increasingly viewing its relationship with the opposition and the public through a highly defensive, aggressive lens.
This combative stance suggests that the administration may prioritize holding onto power over maintaining the democratic standards expected of a modern republic. Mr. President’s “all is fair in politics” represents a negative rhetorical shift in Nigeria’s political landscape. It attempts to normalize political survival at the expense of institutional integrity, constitutional boundaries, and ethical governance. Rather than projecting confidence, this aggressive stance reveals a deep-seated apprehension regarding the administration’s political standing as it looks toward the next election cycle. The president has subtly released the spirit of violence and disorder toward the 2027 election, and this pulls at the heart of Nigeria’s continued existence as a political entity. Nigerians should be worried.
For Nigeria to sustain and strengthen its democratic culture, its political class, civil society, and citizenry must firmly reject President Bola Tinubu’s lawless, unruly philosophy. Turning democratic competition into an unprincipled arena risks reducing the nation’s institutions to mere instruments of personal power. True political strength lies not in a willingness to subvert the rules of governance, but in a commitment to uphold them – especially when facing intense scrutiny and political competition. If Nigeria is to avoid sliding into democratic stasis and institutional capture, it must reaffirm that the constitution is supreme and the leader is not above the law.
