By Musa Asiru Bakare
There is a difference between political opposition and political desperation.
There is a difference between questioning a government and questioning reality; between demanding accountability and manufacturing suspicion; and between exercising the constitutional right to criticise a President and turning unverified rumours about his health into political ammunition.
The recent controversy surrounding President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s health therefore raises a question far bigger than the health of one politician:
What kind of political culture are we building in Nigeria?
President Tinubu returned to Lagos on September 29, 2026, after his extended European working vacation. When asked about his health, he responded directly, saying he was “healthy, sound, and ready to go,” adding that there was “nothing wrong.”
Channels Television independently reported his return and his response to the rumours.
Yet even after the President’s return, speculation continued.
Earlier, Omoyele Sowore, a Presidential candidate in the 2027 election had alleged on Arise Television that President Tinubu was undergoing treatment in France. Sowore said his claim was based on information from sources he regarded as reliable, but he did not provide documentary or independently verifiable evidence establishing that the President was hospitalised.
Then came another extraordinary dimension to the controversy, with Kenneth Okonkwo, a spoke man of Atiku Abubakar, also a Presidential candidate, questioning whether what Nigerians had seen was actually the President and saying that what he saw was a convoy of cars.
This is where responsible opposition politics must pause and ask a fundamental question:
Where does legitimate scrutiny end and reckless insinuation begin?
Opposition politicians have every right to question President Tinubu’s policies, expenditures, appointments, foreign trips, constitutional procedures and performance.
But when an allegation concerns the health and capacity of a sitting President, the burden of evidence becomes even more important.
A rumour does not become evidence because it is repeated on television.
A suspicion does not become fact because it is politically convenient.
And an opponent’s assertion does not become truth merely because it is delivered with confidence.
Nigeria has witnessed the consequences of presidential health controversies before.
The experiences surrounding Presidents Umaru Musa Yar’Adua and Muhammadu Buhari demonstrated how questions about presidential health, constitutional authority and executive continuity can become matters of national importance.
But history should teach us to demand evidence, not to recycle suspicion.
The tragedy surrounding Yar’Adua’s illness should never become a template for political speculation. The constitutional difficulties of yesterday should not become a licence for manufacturing another crisis today.
Democracy requires vigilance, but democracy also requires intellectual honesty.
Where evidence is insufficient, responsible political actors should be courageous enough to say:
“We do not know.”
Those three words may be among the most difficult in Nigerian politics and among the most important.
President Tinubu is a political figure. He is therefore legitimately subject to criticism, scrutiny and opposition.
But the office he occupies is larger than the individual.
He is the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Consequently, careless claims about his physical condition can transcend personal politics.
They can influence public confidence, national-security perceptions, economic expectations and Nigeria’s international image.
That is precisely why the standard of evidence must be higher.
The strength of an opposition is not measured by how loudly it speaks.
It is measured by the quality of the evidence it produces.
A serious opposition does not need imaginary hospitals to challenge a government.
It does not need rumours of illness to interrogate economic policies.
It does not need insinuations about the identity or physical presence of a President when facts can be independently established.
The President’s response after his return was remarkably direct:
“Rumour will always be emanating from politics, but the facts remain, I’m here. Healthy, sound, and ready to go.”Thank you Mr. President
The President returned publicly to Nigeria and personally addressed the health rumours. That does not eliminate the legitimate right of citizens and opposition parties to scrutinise the government. But it reinforces a basic democratic principle:
Claims require evidence.
If opposition politicians possess verifiable evidence of incapacity, constitutional violation or misconduct, they should place that evidence before the appropriate institutions and allow the law to determine the consequences.
But if what exists is merely suspicion, hearsay or political assertion, Nigeria must resist the temptation to elevate speculation into fact.
Our democracy is already burdened by ethnic suspicion, religious distrust, economic anxiety, institutional weakness and political polarisation.
We should not add another dangerous ingredient: the deliberate erosion of truth in political discourse.
Truth remains the boundary that politics must never cross.
When politics becomes a war against truth, democracy itself becomes one of the casualties.
WELCOME BACK HOME ….OUR PRESENT
– Musa Asiru Bakare, Member, Tinubu Support Group (TSG), writes from Lokoja, Kogi State.
