By MELVIN KOFFA

The Governorship Divide: Six Senatorial Districts & Nigeria’s Unfinished Promise of Political Inclusion

SINCE Nigeria returned to civilian rule in 1999, elections have provided the formal route to political power. Yet the distribution of governorship offices continues to generate debate about whose turn it is to lead and how political inclusion should work in a diverse society.

Six senatorial districts illustrate the problem. Southern Borno, Benue South, Gombe South, Kwara North, Kogi West and Ekiti South have yet to produce elected governors during the period examined. Their political histories differ, but the central question is similar: should prolonged exclusion from the highest office create a stronger expectation of rotation, or should political parties and voters remain free to choose candidates without geographical arrangements?

The answer is complicated by Nigeria’s political structure. The Constitution does not assign governorships to senatorial districts in rotation. Nevertheless, political parties and stakeholders can pursue informal zoning arrangements to manage competing interests, encourage inclusion and build electoral coalitions.

Where such arrangements lack broad agreement, however, demands for equity can collide with party strategy, incumbent ambitions and the arithmetic of statewide elections.

The Difference Between Electoral Competition & Political Exclusion

A district’s failure to produce a governor does not automatically prove that its residents have been denied their constitutional rights. Candidates must win party nominations and compete in elections, while voters ultimately determine electoral outcomes within the applicable legal framework.

However, formal equality does not necessarily resolve every concern about political inclusion. Where the governorship repeatedly goes to the same districts, other communities may question whether party structures, access to political networks and informal agreements give them a realistic opportunity to compete.

That concern lies at the centre of the six cases. Some stakeholders cite population and voting strength. Others point to political alliances, internal disagreements or the influence of established political figures.

These claims deserve examination rather than automatic acceptance. Electoral records, party nomination procedures, appointment data and the distribution of public projects can help determine whether an observed pattern reflects electoral preferences, political strategy or broader inequalities in access to power.

The distinction matters because the solution depends on the problem. A district weakened by internal divisions may need stronger coalition-building, while one excluded by a party’s nomination arrangements may seek transparent zoning agreements.

Southern Borno: When Political Geography Shapes Opportunity

In Borno State, Southern Borno has yet to produce an elected governor, while the northern and central districts have supplied the state’s political leadership.

The southern district contains nine local government areas, compared with 18 across the north and centre. Political analyst Zubairu Dauda argued that this distribution, alongside the voting strength of the two northern districts, has disadvantaged southern aspirants.

PDP state chairman Zanna Gadzama similarly cited the number of local government areas and the distribution of party delegates. Both accounts point to the importance of political organisation before election day.

Dauda also argued that historical and traditional affiliations in Chibok and Damboa complicate political alignment within Southern Borno. Such factors suggest that a district’s geographical boundaries do not necessarily translate into a unified voting bloc.

Even so, electoral advantage is not predetermined by the number of local government areas alone. Candidates must assemble support across communities, negotiate party alliances and respond to voters’ priorities.

Southern Borno’s demand for inclusion therefore raises two questions. Can its political leaders agree on a credible candidate, and can they persuade voters outside the district that their candidacy offers a statewide platform rather than a sectional claim?

The answers could influence the district’s prospects more directly than appeals to geographical entitlement alone.

Benue South: Building Trust Across Ethnic & Political Lines

Benue South, widely known as Zone C, has not produced an elected governor since Benue State was created.

The state’s elected governors have emerged from Benue North-East and Benue North-West, areas predominantly inhabited by Tiv communities. Consequently, some residents of the southern district, particularly among the Idoma and Igede populations, regard the pattern as a longstanding representation problem.

James Agada expressed hope that an Idoma or Igede candidate would eventually become governor. His position reflects a desire to see the district represented at the highest executive level.

Stephen Akor, however, stressed that political change would require sustained dialogue with the two predominantly Tiv districts. He argued that leaders from Zone C should address concerns that a governor from the south might marginalise other communities.

This emphasis on reassurance highlights a wider challenge in plural societies. Demands for inclusion can lose support if other groups interpret them as a threat to their own political standing.

A credible power-sharing arrangement must therefore offer more than a promise to transfer the office. It should also address representation in appointments, development priorities and decision-making across the state.

For Benue South, coalition-building and public confidence may prove essential. A candidate who can present a persuasive statewide agenda may be better positioned to bridge political divisions than one whose appeal rests primarily on geographical rotation.

Gombe South: Fairness as a Political Bargaining Tool

Gombe South’s absence from the governorship since 1999 has become a rallying point for stakeholders demanding a shift in power.

The district comprises Balanga, Billiri, Kaltungo and Shongom local government areas. Meanwhile, Gombe North has produced three governors, while Gombe Central produced Danjuma Goje, who served from 2003 to 2011.

In March 2026, the Gombe State Unity Alliance Movement called for support for former Works Commissioner Abubakar Bappah’s governorship ambition. It argued that fairness required the office to move south.

PDP supporter Adam Maisamari blamed political calculations and internal disagreements for the district’s position. He also alleged that the north’s dominance extended to appointments and other political opportunities.

James Tula called for greater unity among political stakeholders from Gombe South.

Their concerns illustrate how power rotation can become a bargaining tool within parties and political coalitions. A district that presents a united front may gain greater negotiating leverage, while competing ambitions can weaken its ability to secure a common commitment.

Nevertheless, the allegation that exclusion from the governorship has extended to other appointments requires separate scrutiny. Public records could show whether the imbalance is confined to one office or reflects a wider pattern in political representation.

Gombe South’s demand will ultimately depend on its ability to turn a claim of fairness into an arrangement that attracts support from other districts and survives the pressures of electoral competition.

Kwara North: A Demand Complicated by Internal Inequality

Kwara North has not produced a governor since the return to democratic rule in 1999. The office has instead been occupied by politicians from Kwara Central and Kwara South.

Mohammed Lawal and Bukola Saraki governed from Kwara Central between 1999 and 2011. Abdulfatah Ahmed, from Kwara South, served from 2011 to 2019, before AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq, from Kwara Central, assumed office in 2019.

Community leaders in Kwara North attribute the pattern to marginalisation, political divisions and poverty. Yet, their accounts also reveal disagreements about the district’s internal distribution of power.

Former Moro council secretary AbdulRauph AbdulSalam argued that Kwara North must address unequal representation within its own boundaries. He raised concerns about Moro’s position relative to the district’s other local government areas.

Retired General Sule Sabi, meanwhile, blamed the influence of political leaders from Kwara Central. He alleged that political godfathers in the central district exercised considerable influence over governorship nominations and dismissed suggestions that Kwara North lacked qualified candidates.

Sabi also argued that disagreements among elders and ethnic groups had prevented the district from presenting a united position. Poverty, he added, further weakened its political prospects.

These accounts reveal a paradox. A district may demand fairness from the wider state while struggling to agree on how fairness should operate internally.

Addressing that contradiction would require inclusive consultation among its constituent communities, transparent candidate-selection arrangements and a shared development agenda. It would also require evidence to establish the extent to which political influence and economic disadvantage affect its electoral prospects.

Kogi West: The Dispute Over 2027 & 2031

Kogi West’s demand for the governorship has become a prominent issue ahead of the 2027 elections.

The district has not produced an elected governor since Kogi State was created. Former commissioner Dr. Tom Ohikere has called for a change, arguing that Kogi East and Kogi Central have occupied the office while Kogi West has not.

Degroup, a pressure group in the district, has also urged political stakeholders to support its ambition. Its spokesperson, former House of Representatives member Shaba Ibrahim, said the group remained committed to securing the governorship for Kogi West.

However, some stakeholders support Governor Ahmed Usman Ododo’s bid for a second term. They argue that continuity would allow the incumbent to complete two constitutionally permitted terms before the office moves to another district.

Stakeholders from Kogi Local Government Area, led by Senator Ado Shaibu, endorsed Ododo for another term and urged Kogi West to wait until 2031. They cited political stability, the continuation of development projects and the prospect of a smoother transition.

The disagreement exposes competing definitions of fairness. One side views an immediate shift as a response to decades without an elected governor from Kogi West. The other considers completion of the incumbent’s possible second term a legitimate priority.

Neither geographical rotation nor continuity should be treated as an automatic substitute for the electoral process. The Constitution governs eligibility and tenure, while the timing of informal rotation depends on political agreements and party decisions.

Governor Ododo has established a power-rotation committee headed by former governor Idris Wada. Kogi West stakeholders have also convened a summit to seek support from other districts.

The committee’s work and the outcome of political consultations could influence the debate. However, any arrangement will need to accommodate competing interests while respecting the rights of voters and the rules governing elections.

Ekiti South: Representation Beyond the Government House

Ekiti South remains the only senatorial district in Ekiti State that has not produced a governor since 1999.

The state’s governorship record shows repeated turns for Ekiti Central and Ekiti North. Otunba Niyi Adebayo and Ayo Fayose, both from Ekiti Central, held office before Segun Oni and Kayode Fayemi, from Ekiti North, served in succession. Fayose and Fayemi later returned for additional terms, while the incumbent, Biodun Abayomi Oyebanji, also comes from Ekiti Central.

Adebayo governed from May 1999 to May 2003. Fayose served from May 2003 to October 2006 and returned from October 2014 to October 2018. Oni governed from April 2007 until October 2010, when a Supreme Court ruling ended his tenure. Fayemi served from October 2010 to October 2014 and again from October 2018 to October 2022. Oyebanji assumed office in October 2022.

This pattern has kept the question of equitable representation alive. However, the governorship record alone does not show whether Ekiti South has been excluded from other institutions or public appointments.

A comprehensive assessment would examine representation in the state legislature, the cabinet, party leadership and public agencies. It would also consider whether development spending and public services are distributed equitably across the three districts.

For Ekiti South, the absence of an elected governor is a clear feature of the state’s political history. Whether that pattern reflects a broader system of marginalisation requires a wider body of evidence.

Can Power Rotation Strengthen Democracy?

The six cases demonstrate why power rotation remains both attractive and contentious in Nigerian politics.

Supporters see it as a way to broaden representation, reassure communities and prevent one district from dominating the governorship indefinitely. In states with diverse ethnic and regional identities, such arrangements may help political parties build coalitions and manage competing ambitions.

Critics of rigid zoning, however, can argue that it restricts candidate choice or creates expectations that a district is entitled to office regardless of the quality of its candidates or the preferences of voters. Informal arrangements can also generate fresh disputes when communities disagree about who should benefit next.

A workable approach would require transparent agreements, broad consultation and clear explanations of how parties reconcile zoning with democratic competition. Political leaders should also avoid presenting a district’s historical absence from the governorship as conclusive proof of deliberate discrimination without supporting evidence.

Equally important, fair representation should extend beyond the geographical origin of a governor. Citizens need accountable leadership, effective public services, equitable access to opportunities and transparent allocation of public resources.

The six districts have different political histories and face different obstacles. Their common challenge is to secure meaningful participation without turning the governorship into an exclusive entitlement.

Ultimately, Nigeria’s democratic maturity will be measured not simply by how frequently power changes hands among senatorial districts, but by how effectively political institutions manage competing claims, protect electoral choice and ensure that every community can participate in government on fair terms.