Nigeria’s political divisions are not merely arguments between parties or disagreements among competing leaders. They can also influence whether public projects continue after elections, whether institutions command public confidence and whether citizens believe their interests come before political calculations. Former President Goodluck Jonathan’s appeal for politicians to put Nigeria above party loyalty therefore raises a question that goes beyond speeches: how can national interest become a consistent principle of governance?

Jonathan made the appeal on Tuesday, October 20, 2026, at the fifth national conference of the Forum of Former Deputy Governors of Nigeria in Abuja. He was represented at the event by Bala Ngilari, a former deputy governor of Adamawa State.

According to Punch, Jonathan urged politicians to prioritise national unity, strengthen democratic institutions and pursue good governance. He identified divisions along ethnic, religious and regional lines as obstacles to Nigeria’s political development and called for politics based on competence, integrity, inclusion and national interest.

Drawing on his experience as a former deputy governor and governor of Bayelsa State, vice-president and president, Jonathan also urged former deputy governors to mentor younger politicians, encourage cooperation between serving governors and their deputies, and discourage divisive political practices.

Former Kano State Governor Abdullahi Ganduje also spoke at the conference. He called for a stronger national identity and criticised political tensions between outgoing and incoming governors that can lead to the abandonment or reversal of projects initiated by previous administrations.

Former Delta State Governor Ifeanyi Okowa raised a related concern, arguing that the growing disconnect between government policies and citizens’ everyday experiences had weakened public trust.

Together, the remarks placed national unity, institutional strength and continuity in governance at the centre of the conference’s discussions.

Calls for unity are familiar in Nigerian politics. The more difficult task is ensuring that unity influences decisions after political campaigns end and elected officials assume office.
Advertisement

Political parties are essential to democracy. They organise competing ideas, present candidates and give voters choices. Loyalty to a party is not inherently incompatible with national interest. The problem arises when party advantage, personal ambition or sectional considerations take precedence over public welfare.

That distinction is important because governance requires cooperation across political differences. Infrastructure, education, healthcare and economic development often depend on policies and projects that take longer than a single administration to complete.

When a successor abandons a useful project simply because a predecessor initiated it, the cost may extend beyond government budgets. Communities can be left waiting for services, while public resources already committed to unfinished work risk being wasted.

Ganduje’s criticism of discontinuity therefore points to a practical test of responsible leadership: whether governments can assess inherited projects on their merits rather than their political origins.

However, continuity should not mean preserving every previous decision. An incoming administration must be able to investigate waste, correct mistakes and change ineffective policies. The objective should be to preserve what serves the public while correcting what does not.

Jonathan’s appeal for stronger institutions is relevant to this balance. Durable rules and transparent decision-making can help prevent governance from depending excessively on the preferences of individual leaders.

Jonathan’s argument: National interest must come first.

Jonathan’s position is that ethnic, religious and regional divisions should not determine political choices. His emphasis on competence, integrity and inclusion suggests that public office should be judged by service to the country rather than loyalty to a particular group.

The strength of this argument is its recognition that Nigeria’s diversity need not prevent cooperation. But the appeal will have limited practical value unless political leaders apply it when making difficult decisions about appointments, public spending and national priorities.

Ganduje focused on friction between outgoing and incoming governors and the effect it can have on government projects. His argument highlights the economic and social costs of treating every change of administration as a reason to reverse existing programmes.

Yet continuity must be accompanied by accountability. Projects should survive changes of government because they remain useful, properly assessed and financially justified, not simply because an earlier administration approved them.

Okowa’s comments brought the discussion closer to the everyday lives of Nigerians. When government policies fail to meet citizens’ expectations, official announcements can become disconnected from the realities people experience.

This perspective reinforces the importance of measuring governance by outcomes. National unity is difficult to sustain when people feel excluded from economic opportunities or believe public institutions are not responding to their needs.

The three perspectives converge on a common concern: leadership must be judged not only by intentions but also by how institutions function and whether public decisions produce tangible benefits.

With the 2027 election cycle approaching, Jonathan’s appeal is relevant to how political competition is conducted. Parties will naturally seek electoral advantage, but the country’s long-term interests require political actors to recognise limits to partisan rivalry.

For voters, the issue is whether political platforms and campaign promises translate into accountable government. National unity cannot be measured by speeches alone; it also depends on whether citizens can access public services, participate in political life and expect institutions to operate fairly.
Advertisement

For state governments, continuity in development planning could help reduce waste and make public investment more effective. Transparent project assessments, published budgets and clear explanations for decisions to continue or discontinue projects would give citizens a stronger basis for evaluating their leaders.

For political parties, the challenge is to develop internal practices that reward competence and responsibility rather than treating loyalty as the only qualification for influence.

These are practical implications of the issues raised at the conference, not outcomes already achieved by it. The available reports do not establish that the gathering produced binding reforms or commitments that will change how governments operate.

The Test Is What Political Leaders Do After the Speeches

Jonathan’s appeal provides a useful standard for evaluating Nigerian politics, but the standard must apply across party lines. National interest cannot be invoked only when it supports a preferred leader, just as continuity cannot justify retaining failed policies or ignoring misconduct.

The responsibility also extends beyond former officeholders. Serving politicians, political parties and public institutions must demonstrate that disagreements can be managed without sacrificing public welfare.

Ultimately, Nigeria does not need political leaders to abandon their parties. It needs them to recognise that party loyalty has limits, public office carries obligations and national development depends on decisions that serve citizens beyond a politician’s tenure. Whether Jonathan’s message gains meaning will be determined not by how often it is repeated, but by whether leaders make those principles visible in the way they govern.