Who is actually in charge of the Obi-Kwankwaso ticket? That may sound like a provocative question, but the two men are increasingly giving Nigerians reason to ask it. With the 2027 presidential election scheduled for January 16, less than four months away, Peter Obi and his running mate, Rabiu Kwankwaso, are publicly taking different positions on issues that go to the heart of how they intend to govern Nigeria.
Obi says he believes in state police. Kwankwaso says he does not. Obi says he will not bring back fuel subsidy. Kwankwaso says the NDC will bring subsidy back, although he describes his proposed approach as a different form of intervention involving government investment in domestic refining and efforts to make petrol available to Nigerians at a reasonable price.
So which position is actually the position of the ticket?
This is where the matter becomes more difficult to brush aside as an ordinary disagreement between a presidential candidate and his running mate. These are not questions about the colour of campaign materials or the location of the next rally. State police is a major question about Nigeria’s security structure and the distribution of power between the federal and state governments. Fuel subsidy is a major economic question involving public finances, petrol prices, domestic refining and the cost of living.
If the two men cannot present the same answer on issues this fundamental, Nigerians have every reason to ask what their governing arrangement would actually look like. Who makes the final decision when they disagree? Does the president simply override the vice-president? Does the vice-president campaign for one position and then defend another once in government? Or have they already reached an agreement that has not been properly explained to the public?
The fuel subsidy disagreement is particularly difficult to ignore. Obi’s position is that he would not bring subsidy back, while Kwankwaso is openly talking about bringing it back “in our own way.” Kwankwaso has argued that government should not simply leave refining entirely to private operators and suggested that the government could build refineries to meet Nigeria’s minimum requirements and help bring down the price of petrol.
But where is the detailed policy?
How much would this proposed intervention cost the Nigerian treasury? What exactly would be subsidised? Would government subsidise the product, support refineries, absorb part of production costs or establish another form of price support? What would happen when international crude prices rise? How would the government prevent the arrangement from becoming another expensive burden on public finances? And if the long-term solution is supposed to be domestic refining, why is the policy being described as a form of subsidy in the first place?
These are reasonable questions for anyone asking Nigerians for the presidency. A campaign can survive on broad promises, but government cannot. Once in office, somebody has to put numbers behind the promises, identify where the money will come from and explain how the policy will work when circumstances change.
The same applies to state police. Obi’s support for state police and Kwankwaso’s opposition to it are not merely personal preferences. They point to different views about how security should be organised in a federal system. If they eventually form a government, Nigerians need to know how such a fundamental disagreement would be handled. It is not enough to say that both men have experience or that they have come together for a common purpose. The country needs to know what happens when that common purpose meets a genuine policy disagreement.
And that raises an even bigger question: are these disagreements isolated, or do they reflect deeper differences in how both men understand government?
What is their shared economic philosophy? What is their position on the size and cost of government? How much borrowing is acceptable? What is the proper role of government in energy and infrastructure? How should social intervention be funded? How much should be left to the market? How should the government balance reform with immediate relief for citizens? And when Obi and Kwankwaso disagree on any of these questions, who gets the final word?
These are not questions designed simply to embarrass either man. They are questions that naturally arise when two politicians are asking voters to see them as one governing team.
Political alliances are easy to announce. Governing partnerships are much harder to build. The campaign stage allows politicians to stand together, share platforms and speak about a common desire for change. Government is where the disagreements that were manageable during a campaign can become actual policy decisions affecting millions of people.
That is why the timing matters. The election is not two years away. INEC has fixed January 16, 2027, for the presidential and National Assembly elections. The closer the election gets, the more important it becomes for presidential tickets to explain not just what they want to change, but how they intend to govern together.
For Obi and Kwankwaso, the question is therefore becoming unavoidable: who is actually in charge of the policy direction of this ticket?
If Obi’s position on subsidy is the position of the ticket, why is Kwankwaso publicly promising to bring it back? If Kwankwaso’s approach is the agreed policy, why is Obi saying something different? If both positions can somehow coexist, then the NDC needs to explain exactly how. Nigerians should not have to guess which version they will get after the election.
The same question applies to state police. If one supports it and the other rejects it, voters deserve to know whether the disagreement has been resolved or whether it will simply be postponed until they are in power.
Perhaps there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for all of this. Perhaps the ticket has a detailed agreement covering these differences. If that is the case, there is no reason not to put that agreement before Nigerians clearly and directly.
Because ultimately, this is not about whether Obi and Kwankwaso are permitted to disagree. They are. The real issue is whether they have demonstrated enough policy coherence to convince Nigerians that they know how they will govern together.
A presidential ticket is supposed to offer more than two politicians standing beside each other. It is supposed to offer a governing programme. And when the presidential candidate and his running mate give different answers on major questions before the election, the burden is on them to explain where the actual position of their government lies.
So, who is actually in charge of this ticket?
Nigerians deserve an answer before they are asked to hand the two men the keys to Aso Rock, that is, if Nigerians decide to give them those keys at all. Looking at the lack of visible policy alignment and the serious questions these disagreements raise about coordination, preparedness and the ability to work as one government, that outcome cannot simply be taken for granted.