Follow Us on Google
By Silas Shuaib
When a group of Christian bishops publicly declares its support for a President elected on a Muslim-Muslim ticket, the political significance cannot be dismissed as another endorsement in the long road to 2027.
It raises a bigger question: has President Bola Ahmed Tinubu succeeded in separating governance from the religious fears that surrounded his 2023 election?
The latest endorsement by the Charismatic Bishops Conference of Nigeria suggests that, at least among a section of Christian leadership, the answer is increasingly yes.
At its 2026 synod, the conference endorsed Tinubu for a second term, with its President-General, Archbishop Leonard Bature Kawas, declaring that the bishops would continue to stand with the President through prayers and advocacy. More striking was the reasoning behind the endorsement.
The bishops did not present their position merely as partisan loyalty. They pointed to what they described as fairness in appointments, support for Christian participation in governance and the administration’s performance since taking office.
That is significant because the Muslim-Muslim ticket was one of the most contentious issues surrounding the 2023 presidential election. Critics warned that a presidency and vice-presidency occupied by Muslims could undermine religious balance in a country as religiously sensitive as Nigeria.
Tinubu and his supporters argued that competence and national interest should supersede religious calculations. Nearly four years into the administration, the political debate is beginning to acquire another dimension: how has the government actually treated Nigerians of different faiths and tendencies? The bishops’ endorsement provides one answer.
Archbishop Kawas argued that Tinubu has not demonstrated nepotism in his appointments and pointed to the emergence of Christian governors across the country as evidence that the administration has not sought to impose a religious template on Nigeria.
He also cited the President’s relationship with Christianity and the role of the First Lady, Senator Oluremi Tinubu, a Christian. Whether one agrees with every appointment made by the administration is a separate question. Governments must always be scrutinised over competence, transparency, regional balance and performance.
But the larger point raised by the bishops deserves consideration: religious identity at the level of political leadership does not automatically determine the character of governance. A Muslim president can govern Christians fairly. A Christian governor can govern Muslims fairly.
A government can be judged by the opportunities it creates, the institutions it strengthens, the security it provides and the economic conditions it leaves behind—not simply by the faith of the people occupying its highest offices.
This is an important lesson for Nigeria. The country’s diversity is too deep for the government to become a permanent competition between religious blocs. Nigeria is home to Christians, Muslims and adherents of traditional faiths. It is also divided by ethnicity, geography, language, class and political affiliation.
The challenge before every national government is therefore to construct a political coalition broad enough to accommodate these differences without allowing them to become permanent sources of suspicion.
The Tinubu administration’s supporters argue that this is precisely what has been happening. They point to far-reaching reforms in the economy, infrastructure, student financing, credit access, energy and public finance as evidence that the government is attempting to address structural problems that affect Nigerians regardless of their religion.
Other News
The removal of fuel subsidy, for instance, has affected households and businesses across religious and ethnic boundaries. The same is true of investments in infrastructure and programmes designed to expand access to education and finance.
The pain of reform does not ask whether a citizen is Muslim or Christian. Neither does the benefit. That reality makes the bishops’ endorsement particularly interesting.
It suggests that political support can evolve when constituencies begin to assess a government according to its record rather than the fears that preceded its emergence. The bishops’ statement that they would stand with Tinubu “even beyond 2027” is consequently more than a campaign slogan.
It represents a vote of confidence from a constituency that could have been expected to remain deeply sceptical of a presidency elected under the Muslim-Muslim ticket arrangement. Instead, the conference says it sees reasons to support continuity.
That does not mean every Christian agrees with the government. Nor does it mean criticism of the administration should be discouraged. In a democracy, even a supportive constituency must retain the freedom to question government policy.
Indeed, genuine support should not mean unconditional silence. But the bishops’ position challenges the simplistic assumption that religious affiliation automatically dictates political allegiance.
A Christian can support a Muslim president. A Muslim can support a Christian governor. A Northerner can support a Southern candidate. A Southerner can support a Northern candidate. Democracy becomes healthier when citizens are free to make such choices without being told that their religion or ethnicity has already decided their political position for them.
There is another significant dimension to the bishops’ intervention. Archbishop Kawas said the President had responded to the group’s call to engage United States President Donald Trump over insecurity in Nigeria.
That reference highlights the importance of advocacy beyond electoral politics. Religious leaders possess considerable influence within Nigerian society. Churches and mosques reach communities that government institutions sometimes struggle to reach. Their ability to shape public attitudes can be used either to deepen division or to encourage national cohesion.
When religious leaders engage the government on insecurity, development and social welfare, they become stakeholders in the national project. The CBCN’s decision to combine support with advocacy is therefore instructive.
It suggests that its relationship with the government is not simply about political endorsement but also about influencing policy in areas the bishops consider important. The conference’s call for religious leaders to be considered in political appointments is, however, an issue that deserves careful handling.
Religious leaders can bring valuable community knowledge and social influence, but public appointments must ultimately be governed by competence, integrity, experience and constitutional principles.
This is particularly important under an administration that has undertaken difficult reforms. Tinubu inherited an economy burdened by structural distortions and chose to pursue changes that have imposed significant short-term pressures on citizens while promising longer-term gains.
The political argument for continuity is becoming clearer: if reforms are beginning to produce stronger foundations for growth, investment and opportunity, then abandoning them prematurely could create another cycle of policy reversal.
• Shuaib writes from Abuja
