Governor Chukwuma Charles Soludo of Anambra State has ignited an important national debate with his reported appeal to the people of his state to support President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s re-election in 2027. His argument is that the erosion crisis confronting Anambra exceeds the financial capacity of the state government and requires federal intervention.
In remarks reported on 12 October 2026, Soludo warned that failing to support Tinubu could have consequences for Anambra. He linked his appeal to the need for federal assistance with erosion control and proposed highway projects, arguing that political cooperation with the government at the centre could help secure these interventions.
The governor reportedly reinforced his argument with a pointed observation about the difficulty of removing Tinubu from power, given that he had already overcome his opponents to become President.
These remarks raise questions that go beyond the immediate political controversy. Is Soludo making a pragmatic case for strategic engagement with the Federal Government, or does his warning risk creating the impression that access to essential public assistance depends on electoral loyalty?
A balanced assessment requires us to distinguish between the legitimate pursuit of political advantage and the responsibilities of government in a constitutional democracy.
ANAMBRA’S EROSION CRISIS IS REAL
First, the gravity of Anambra’s environmental challenges should not be lost in the political exchanges.
Gully erosion has threatened communities, destroyed valuable land and placed homes, roads and livelihoods at risk. Addressing a crisis of this magnitude requires substantial financing, technical expertise, environmental planning and coordinated action across different levels of government.
There is a reasonable basis for Soludo’s argument that his administration cannot shoulder the entire burden alone. Some environmental emergencies are simply too extensive for a single subnational government to manage effectively without assistance.
Indeed, on 8 May 2025, President Tinubu publicly pledged federal support for ecological investments to tackle erosion in Anambra. The President also addressed requests concerning federal roads and the state’s connection to the national rail network.
That commitment establishes an important starting point: federal intervention is a legitimate matter of public policy, not simply a favour to be negotiated as part of an electoral bargain.
The Federal Government has national coordinating institutions and access to resources that can support large-scale ecological interventions. Anambra’s environmental emergency therefore warrants sustained cooperation between federal and state authorities.
Soludo is entitled to press for that cooperation. He is also entitled to explain why he believes maintaining a productive relationship with the President would benefit his state.
The difficulty arises when the argument moves from the advantages of cooperation to the possible consequences of voting for a different candidate.
POLITICAL PRAGMATISM HAS ITS PLACE
It would be unfair to dismiss Soludo’s argument without considering the practical realities of governance.
Governors routinely negotiate with the Federal Government to secure projects, influence national policy and obtain assistance for development initiatives their states cannot finance independently. Political relationships, strategic engagement and policy continuity can all affect the progress of such negotiations.
In this context, Soludo’s argument deserves to be understood in its strongest form.
If the Federal Government is considering major roads, ecological interventions and other infrastructure projects in Anambra, the governor has a responsibility to ensure that his state is well positioned to benefit. He would be failing in that responsibility if he ignored opportunities for constructive engagement with the President.
His reference to proposed highways linking communities in Anambra and neighbouring areas illustrates the practical dimension of his argument. However, proposed projects must be distinguished from projects that have received full funding, commenced construction or been completed.
It is reasonable for a governor to argue that continuity could facilitate the implementation of existing commitments. Changes in government can alter priorities, require fresh negotiations or introduce delays.
Nevertheless, continuity is not guaranteed merely because voters support an incumbent, just as a change of administration does not automatically mean that every existing project will be abandoned.
The real test is whether commitments are documented, adequately funded, incorporated into established programmes and supported by institutions capable of carrying them forward.
Political pragmatism is useful, but it should not become a substitute for institutional guarantees.
WHERE THE WARNING BECOMES CONTENTIOUS
The most sensitive aspect of Soludo’s remarks is his warning that there will be consequences if Anambra fails to support Tinubu.
The reports attribute to him an argument that the state could lose opportunities by backing a presidential candidate who does not win, only to return later to the incumbent President for assistance with projects.
That position can be interpreted as a warning about the practical risks of political miscalculation. It is not unreasonable for a political leader to caution voters that electoral choices can have consequences for policy continuity and the direction of government.
Nevertheless, the language raises a legitimate concern.
There is a fundamental difference between encouraging voters to support a president because of his record, policies or commitments and leaving them with the impression that their state may lose access to essential public assistance if they choose someone else.
The first is democratic persuasion. The second risks making public resources appear conditional on electoral loyalty.
It is important not to attribute to Soludo an intention that the available reports do not conclusively establish. His remarks do not, by themselves, prove that he intends to intimidate voters or that President Tinubu has threatened to withdraw federal assistance from Anambra.
The more defensible question is whether the governor’s warning, regardless of its intended meaning, could reasonably be understood as suggesting that electoral disobedience carries a price for the wider population.
That is a concern worth examining, particularly when the subject is an environmental emergency that threatens lives, homes and livelihoods.
FEDERALISM MUST TRANSCEND PARTISAN CALCULATIONS
Nigeria’s federal system is founded on constitutionally established governments with distinct responsibilities and areas of shared responsibility.
The Constitution does not establish a system in which citizens must demonstrate electoral allegiance to the President before their communities can benefit from legitimate public programmes. Federal allocations, statutory obligations and approved interventions must be administered in accordance with applicable laws and transparent criteria.
This principle is especially important when dealing with environmental disasters.
The Federal Government must be able to consider competing national priorities, the urgency of particular emergencies, the availability of funds and the technical feasibility of proposed interventions. These are legitimate considerations in allocating public resources.
But the political affiliation or voting preferences of affected citizens should not become a substitute for those considerations.
The same standard should apply to every state, whether its governor belongs to the governing party at the centre or maintains a different political affiliation.
A federation becomes vulnerable when essential public interventions are perceived to depend primarily on personal relationships or partisan goodwill. Such an arrangement creates uncertainty for citizens and makes development unnecessarily susceptible to electoral calculations.
The objective should be to institutionalise cooperation so that environmental protection and infrastructure development remain sustainable across changes of government.
TINUBU’S RESPONSIBILITY IS NATIONAL
The controversy also raises a question for President Tinubu and his administration.
The President governs all Nigerians, including those who voted for other candidates, those who opposed him and those who did not participate in the election.
Anambra’s erosion crisis should therefore be assessed on its merits. The relevant considerations include the scale of the threat, the number of communities affected, the urgency of intervention, the engineering solutions available, the costs involved and the capacity of the implementing agencies.
Where federal intervention is justified, it should not depend on whether Anambra voters support Tinubu in 2027.
Indeed, an impartial and effective response would demonstrate the practical value of national unity more convincingly than political declarations alone.
The President’s public pledge in May 2025 provides a basis for holding the administration accountable. The next questions concern implementation: What ecological projects have been approved? What funds have been released? Which interventions are underway? What remains outstanding, and when can affected communities expect results?
These questions are not partisan. They are questions of public accountability.
A promise is not the same as an approval; an approval is not the same as a budgetary release; and a release of funds is not proof that a project has been completed.
For vulnerable communities, the difference between these stages can be the difference between an announced solution and tangible protection.
WHAT THE ANAMBRA GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO
The Soludo administration can strengthen its case for federal intervention by placing the crisis within a transparent, evidence-based framework.
First, it should maintain and publish an updated inventory of critical erosion sites, identifying communities at immediate risk, the estimated cost of intervention and the consequences of further delay.
Second, it should work with relevant federal agencies to establish a jointly agreed programme, with clear responsibilities, financing arrangements and implementation timelines.
Third, the Federal Government should provide transparent information on the status of approved ecological projects and the criteria used to prioritise competing requests from states.
Fourth, both governments should establish a credible monitoring framework that allows affected communities, civil society organisations and the media to track expenditure and assess progress.
Finally, political leaders should encourage citizens to assess candidates through their records, policies and commitments rather than through fear of losing access to public services.
These measures would turn the controversy into an opportunity for better governance.
THE LARGER LESSON FOR NIGERIA
The Anambra controversy is not simply about one governor’s political calculations or one president’s re-election prospects. It touches on a recurring challenge in Nigerian governance: the relationship between political power, public resources and citizens’ expectations of government.
Political alignment may facilitate negotiations, but a system that relies excessively on partisan goodwill to secure essential public interventions remains vulnerable to uncertainty.
What happens when a president leaves office? What happens when the next administration has different political loyalties? Must states repeatedly renegotiate their fundamental development needs because political relationships have changed?
A more durable approach would strengthen transparent funding mechanisms, clearly defined institutional responsibilities and objective criteria for allocating federal assistance.
This is particularly necessary for ecological emergencies, which do not respect electoral calendars or party boundaries. Erosion continues whether elections are approaching or not. Communities remain vulnerable regardless of which candidate wins. The consequences of delayed intervention can be irreversible.
The national interest is therefore best served when cooperation between governments is institutionalised rather than presented as dependent on electoral gratitude.
CONCLUSION: LET PERFORMANCE, NOT FEAR, SHAPE THE BALLOT
Soludo has drawn attention to a legitimate development concern: Anambra requires federal support to confront an erosion crisis that the state cannot reasonably be expected to manage entirely on its own.
His appeal for strategic cooperation with the Federal Government deserves consideration. Governors have a duty to pursue every lawful avenue that can secure development for their people, and constructive engagement with the centre is an important part of that responsibility.
Yet the democratic implications of linking such cooperation to electoral support cannot be ignored. Citizens should not be left with the impression that their communities’ safety or access to essential public interventions depends on voting for a particular president.
The appropriate response is neither to dismiss the practical importance of federal-state cooperation nor to accept political alignment as a substitute for fairness and accountability.
President Tinubu should be judged by the commitments his administration fulfils, the projects it delivers and the extent to which its policies improve the lives of Nigerians. Governor Soludo should similarly be judged by his stewardship of Anambra’s resources, his efforts to protect vulnerable communities and his ability to secure sustainable solutions to the state’s environmental challenges.
Ultimately, the people of Anambra must remain free to make their electoral choices. Their votes belong to them, and their communities’ legitimate development needs deserve consideration regardless of those choices.
The erosion crisis demands urgency, not political brinkmanship. It calls for cooperation, transparency and sustained investment, not uncertainty about whether citizens will be disadvantaged for exercising their democratic rights.
In a democracy, political cooperation should be a means of delivering public goods, not a reason for citizens to fear the consequences of choosing differently at the ballot box.
Frank Odion Apokwu is a Public Affairs Analyst who writes from Asaba, Delta State.
