Tinubu at the Crossroads: The 2027 Calculus, Religious Balance and the Possible Exit of Shettima.

By George Omagbemi Sylvester 

“A Presidency Tested by Power, Perception and Nigeria’s Fragile Unity.”

As Nigeria inches toward the 2027 general elections, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu stands before one of the most consequential political decisions of his presidency: whether to retain Vice President Kashim Shettima or recalibrate his re-election ticket by choosing a Christian running mate. What initially appeared as insider speculation has now evolved into a serious national conversation touching on RELIGION, POWER, ELECTORAL SURVIVAL and the LONG-TERM cohesion of Africa’s most populous democracy.

Reports suggesting that Tinubu may drop Shettima have generated intense debate across political, religious and diplomatic circles. While the presidency has neither confirmed nor denied such intentions, the mere plausibility of the move speaks volumes about the unresolved tensions created by the Muslim-Muslim ticket that brought the All Progressives Congress (APC) to power in 2023. That ticket, though electorally successful, left deep emotional and symbolic scars in a country where religion remains a defining marker of identity, belonging and political legitimacy.

Tinubu’s defenders have long argued that competence should trump identity. Yet politics is not practiced in abstraction. Nigeria’s history shows that perception often matters as much as policy and symbolism can be as powerful as legislation. The 2023 election may have proven that a Muslim-Muslim ticket could win, but it did not prove that it could unite.

Across Nigeria’s Christian communities (particularly in the Middle Belt and parts of the South) there remains a lingering sense of exclusion. This sentiment has been amplified by persistent insecurity, the targeting of Christian villages by armed groups and a widespread belief that the federal government has not demonstrated sufficient urgency or empathy. In this context, the discussion about Tinubu’s 2027 ticket is not merely about Shettima as an individual, but about what the presidency represents and whose voices are visibly acknowledged at the highest level of power.

It is therefore significant that calls for a Christian running mate are not coming only from southern Christian leaders. Influential northern groups, including inter-ethnic and inter-faith coalitions, have publicly urged the president to consider religious balance in 2027. Their argument is not rooted in hostility toward Shettima, but in political realism. Nigeria, they insist, cannot afford to normalize exclusion in a nation already stretched by ethno-religious fault lines.

Political analysts note that the APC’s internal dynamics further complicate the matter. Kashim Shettima represents continuity, loyalty and northern political strength. Removing him risks alienating a key bloc that remains critical to Tinubu’s electoral math. Northern Nigeria, despite economic hardship and security crises, continues to command decisive voting power. Any perception that the vice president was sacrificed to appease international opinion or southern Christian pressure could provoke backlash within the party and beyond it.

Yet retaining Shettima carries its own risks. The 2027 election will not be fought under the same conditions as 2023. Tinubu now campaigns not as an insurgent political strategist but as an incumbent president whose record will be scrutinized domestically and internationally. Economic reforms, subsidy removal, inflation, currency instability and widespread hardship have reshaped voter expectations. In such an environment, symbolism regains importance. A re-election ticket that appears insensitive to diversity could prove costly, particularly among swing voters and younger Nigerians who increasingly frame politics through inclusion and justice rather than tradition.

International perception also plays a subtle but undeniable role. Nigeria’s strategic partners in the West have grown more vocal about religious freedom, minority protection and inclusive governance. While there is no publicly documented evidence of direct foreign pressure on Tinubu to change his ticket, diplomatic conversations around security and human rights inevitably shape elite political thinking. In a global era where democratic credentials influence investment, security cooperation and diplomatic leverage, Nigeria’s internal political signals matter far beyond its borders.

Scholars have long warned that when democratic systems fail to reflect pluralism, legitimacy erodes. Professor Jibrin Ibrahim, a respected political scientist, has argued that “Nigeria’s stability depends not only on elections, but on the perception that power rotates fairly across identities.” Similarly, Professor Amina Mama, writing on governance in divided societies, has emphasized that “symbolic inclusion is not cosmetic; it is foundational to democratic trust.”

Critics of the proposed change counter that competence and loyalty should outweigh religious arithmetic. They warn that dropping Shettima could fracture the APC and create an image of a president who discards allies when convenient. Some religious leaders have even cautioned that such a move could be interpreted as weakness or betrayal, particularly in a political culture that prizes loyalty. From this perspective, Tinubu’s silence on the matter is itself strategic, allowing speculation to circulate without committing to a course of action too early.

What is often missing from the debate, however, is a deeper reflection on Nigeria’s democratic maturity. The recurring obsession with religious balancing on tickets is itself a symptom of unresolved nation-building. In stable democracies, leadership choices rarely provoke existential anxiety about identity. In Nigeria, they do not just because the state has historically failed to guarantee equal protection, opportunity and justice to all citizens. Until those structural issues are addressed, symbolism will continue to carry disproportionate weight.

The question, therefore, is not simply whether Tinubu will drop Shettima, but what such a decision would signal. Retaining him could be framed as consistency and confidence. Replacing him with a Christian running mate could be framed as reconciliation and responsiveness. Either choice will reshape the political narrative of 2027 and define Tinubu’s legacy as either a consolidator of power or a bridge-builder in a fractured republic.

For Vice President Shettima himself, the speculation is a reminder of the precarious nature of power in Nigerian politics. Vice presidents, historically, have often been expendable pieces on the chessboard of ambition. From Alex Ekwueme to Atiku Abubakar to Yemi Osinbajo, the office has rarely guaranteed political security. The current moment fits that pattern, underscoring how institutions remain weaker than personalities.

As Nigeria approaches another electoral crossroads, the stakes could not be higher. The 2027 election will test not only the APC’s internal coherence but Nigeria’s capacity to learn from its own tensions. A country battling insecurity, poverty and declining trust in public institutions cannot afford leadership decisions that deepen alienation.

In the final analysis, Tinubu’s dilemma reflects Nigeria’s unfinished project. Democracy here is still negotiating its relationship with identity, equity and power. Whether he chooses continuity or recalibration, the decision must rise above short-term electoral calculation and speak to a broader vision of national healing.

History will judge this moment not by political cleverness alone, but by whether leadership choices helped steady a fragile nation or further polarized it. In that sense, the 2027 ticket is not just a campaign tool; it is a statement about the kind of Nigeria its leaders believe is possible; and worth fighting for.