… Advocates democratic self-determination, warns against ethnicising 2027 election
*L-R: President Bola Tinubu and Commodore Kunle Olawunmi.
Professor and retired naval officer, Commodore Kunle Olawunmi, has warned that the Yoruba people risk being trapped in a dangerous political dilemma if the 2027 presidential election becomes a referendum on their ethnic identity rather than a contest over governance and national policy.
Olawunmi argued that neither President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s re-election nor his defeat should determine the political security, dignity or long-term future of the Yoruba people.
He said Tinubu’s policies, appointments and performance should be assessed as those of the Federal Government and not as a collective political project of the Yoruba nation.
In a wide-ranging intervention on Nigeria’s political future, the professor said the growing tendency to associate Tinubu’s presidency with the Yoruba could expose millions of Yoruba people to the consequences of decisions they neither made nor controlled.
He described the situation as a dangerous paradox.
“If President Tinubu wins, the actions and failures of his government may increasingly be presented as the collective project of the Yoruba. If he loses, the Yoruba may be exposed to political retaliation by interests that treat his presidency as an ethnic conquest,” he argued.
Olawunmi stressed that although Tinubu is Yoruba, the President cannot be equated with the Yoruba nation.
He warned against a political culture in which the fortunes of an entire ethnic nationality become tied to the success or failure of an individual politician.
According to him, the Yoruba should neither defend policies they consider harmful merely because the President shares their ancestry nor accept collective responsibility for decisions over which ordinary citizens have little or no influence.
Appointments, economic hardship and collective blame
Olawunmi identified the controversy surrounding federal appointments as one of the issues capable of deepening the ethnicisation of the Tinubu presidency.
He noted that criticisms had emerged, including from individuals within the governing political establishment, over what critics described as the concentration of strategic appointments around the President’s political and ethnic network.
While acknowledging that the Presidency had rejected allegations that its appointments violated the constitutional principle of federal character, Olawunmi said the political consequences of the controversy went beyond the legality or constitutionality of individual appointments.
His concern, he explained, was that perceived benefits accruing to a limited political circle could eventually be interpreted as benefits accruing to the Yoruba as a whole.
“Private advantage for a few can therefore become public danger for millions,” he warned.
He made a similar argument concerning the administration’s economic policies, particularly the removal of petrol subsidy and liberalisation of the foreign exchange regime.
While the policies were introduced as structural reforms aimed at correcting longstanding economic distortions, Olawunmi observed that their implementation had coincided with severe economic pressure on households and businesses.
Whatever the merits or shortcomings of the reforms, he maintained, they remained decisions of the Federal Government and should not be regarded as decisions taken by the Yoruba people.
The danger, he said, lies in the tendency of Nigerian politics to transform the actions of individual officeholders into presumed actions of their ethnic communities.
At the heart of Olawunmi’s argument is the distinction between ethnic identity and political responsibility.
He maintained that the Yoruba should reject attempts to make them collectively responsible for the Tinubu administration, just as they should resist the temptation to regard the President’s political survival as synonymous with their own survival.
“Bola Tinubu is a Yoruba man, but he is not the Yoruba nation,” he declared.
For him, the larger challenge is to build a political system in which governments are held directly accountable for their decisions rather than one in which presidential contests are presented as battles for ethnic survival.
He argued that Nigeria’s current federal arrangement had failed to establish a sufficiently clear relationship between political power and responsibility.
According to him, state governments are often blamed for insecurity even though the police remain substantially under federal control, while states and regions face restrictions and prolonged negotiations in exercising authority over matters central to their development.
He also questioned the revenue-sharing arrangement under which revenues are pooled and redistributed, arguing that it could weaken the connection between taxation, performance and accountability.
The result, he said, is a governance structure in which different levels of government can shift responsibility whenever citizens demand explanations for failure.
From federal politics to Yoruba self-determination
Olawunmi consequently advocated a serious, structured and democratic conversation about Yoruba self-determination.
He argued that the Yoruba constitute a historic national community with a shared linguistic and cultural heritage, substantial population, identifiable territorial base, established urban centres, educational institutions, commercial networks, professional capacity and a long history of organised political authority.
He acknowledged the internal diversity of Yoruba society but maintained that such diversity did not invalidate the concept of nationhood.
The critical question, he said, should not be whether a people are completely homogeneous, but whether they possess a sustained collective identity, territorial base, institutional capacity and the political will to determine their future.
Olawunmi said the first three conditions already existed among the Yoruba, while the fourth—political will—would have to emerge through democratic processes.
He stressed that self-determination should not be understood as an argument for Yoruba superiority or hostility towards other Nigerians, but as a question of accountable government.
“A sovereign Yoruba state would place final political responsibility closer to the people who must live with its consequences,” he argued.
Such an arrangement, he said, could give the Yoruba greater control over security institutions, economic priorities, education, public administration and external relations.
1993 election offers enduring lesson
Olawunmi also invoked the annulled June 12, 1993 presidential election as a historical warning.
He argued that the election, in which Moshood Kashimawo Abiola secured support across ethnic, regional and religious boundaries, demonstrated that broad national political acceptance could still be overturned when political power was placed above electoral consent.
For him, the lesson of 1993 should not be used to perpetuate hatred or permanent hostility towards other Nigerian groups.
Rather, he said, it should encourage the Yoruba to recognise that participation in Nigeria’s federal political contest does not, by itself, guarantee that their democratic mandate, security or long-term interests will always be protected.
The 2027 election, he suggested, should therefore not become another referendum on whether the Yoruba are politically safe only when a Yoruba occupies Aso Rock.
“If the political safety of the Yoruba rises when one Yoruba candidate wins and falls when he loses, then the federation has failed to create equal citizenship. Presidency is temporary. Nationhood is intergenerational,” he said.
No shortcut to independence
Olawunmi, however, cautioned that the demand for self-determination could not be achieved through declarations, emotional mobilisation or violence.
He acknowledged that Nigeria’s Constitution declares the federation indivisible and does not provide a straightforward mechanism for unilateral secession.
He also recognised that although international law affirms the principle of self-determination, it does not automatically confer on every national community an unrestricted right to break away from an existing sovereign state.
He therefore advocated a peaceful, democratic and negotiated process.
Olawunmi proposed the establishment of a representative Yoruba self-determination congress involving the six South-West states, Yoruba communities outside the region and broad sections of society, including women, young people, traditional rulers, professionals, organised labour, businesses, religious organisations and non-Yoruba residents of the region.
Such a body, he said, must operate transparently and must not allow any individual or organisation to claim permanent ownership of the Yoruba political voice.
Olawunmi seeks referendum on Yoruba future
The professor further proposed that the movement should eventually seek an authorised referendum on the constitutional future of the Yoruba people.
He stressed, however, that any referendum must be based on clearly established rules covering the electorate, territory, voting procedures and mechanisms for resolving disputes.
Support for independence, he said, should not be inferred from political rallies, social media campaigns or unverified opinion polls. What is required, he maintained, is a verifiable democratic mandate.
He also called for constitutional engagement within Nigeria, arguing that advocates of self-determination could not speak exclusively to Yoruba audiences if their objective was to achieve a peaceful and lawful political settlement.
Olawunmi pointed to the demanding procedures for constitutional alteration under Section 9 of the Nigerian Constitution as evidence that the process would require sustained engagement with the National Assembly, state legislatures and the wider Nigerian public.
He added that any proposed settlement should guarantee continued trade, transit, security cooperation and protection for citizens living on either side of any eventual political boundary.
‘No armed wing, no ethnic intimidation’
Olawunmi insisted that any self-determination movement must be firmly rooted in non-violence.
He rejected the idea of an armed wing or any attempt to intimidate people on ethnic grounds.
He also opposed forced compliance and attacks against Nigerians living in Yorubaland, arguing that a movement seeking freedom must demonstrate that it is capable of protecting the rights of minorities and non-indigenes.
“A movement claiming freedom must demonstrate in its conduct that it can be trusted with power,” he said.
He urged Yoruba politicians seeking elective office to disclose their positions on self-determination and, where they support it, pursue the issue through lawful legislative and political channels.
Beyond Tinubu and the 2027 election
Olawunmi was emphatic that his intervention should not be interpreted either as a campaign to rescue Tinubu or as an attempt to punish him politically.
Rather, he said the Yoruba question should be considered beyond the immediate fortunes of the President and the 2027 election.
According to him, Tinubu will eventually leave office either through electoral defeat or the completion of his constitutional tenure, but the Yoruba people will remain.
He therefore urged Yoruba leaders to stop building their collective political strategy around access to the presidency.
He also called on President Tinubu to recognise the dangers inherent in allowing federal power to become identified with his personal and ethnic political network.
The President, he said, should uphold the principle of federal character, protect competitive democracy and recognise peaceful advocacy for self-determination as a political issue that should be addressed through dialogue rather than repression.
For Olawunmi, repression would not eliminate the demand for self-determination; instead, it could strengthen the argument of those who believe that the existing political structure does not adequately accommodate the aspirations of the Yoruba.
‘The time is before the next crisis’
The professor’s intervention ultimately shifts the conversation from the immediate question of who wins the 2027 presidential election to a broader debate about the constitutional future of the Yoruba and the nature of Nigeria’s federal system.
He argued that the Yoruba should not wait for another political crisis before organising, just as they should not confuse the electoral victory of an individual politician with the security of an entire people.
“The time to establish a democratic mandate is before the next crisis, while dialogue remains possible,” he said.
Olawunmi maintained that the Yoruba could pursue self-determination without embracing hostility towards Nigeria or other nationalities.
His proposed model, he said, is based on consent, law, negotiation and peaceful coexistence, with continued friendship, commerce and mutual respect between the Yoruba and other peoples of Nigeria.
The central proposition, therefore, is that the future of the Yoruba should not depend on the occupant of Aso Rock.
“Tinubu will one day leave office, whether through election or the completion of his constitutional tenure. The Yoruba people will remain,” Olawunmi said.
“Their future must be secured by institutions and democratic consent, not by the uncertain protection of one presidency.”