In recent years, especially since the 2020 #EndSARS protests, a familiar argument has resurfaced in Nigeria’s political discussion: that the country’s governance crisis is largely the result of the recycling of older men in power. For many young Nigerians, frustration with unemployment, insecurity, and economic stagnation has translated into a call for generational change. The assumption is simple: replace the old with the young, and Nigeria will work. It is easier said than done. It is an emotionally appealing argument, but it is also an incomplete one.
Nigeria’s governance challenge is less about age and more about leadership capacity, institutional weakness, and a deficit of accountability. Youthfulness without competence is not a reform agenda. Energy without vision is not a development strategy, as leadership is not a birth certificate contest.
“That contradiction reveals something deeper: that Nigerians may desire generational change rhetorically, but when faced with the ballot, they often prioritise perceived experience, structure, name recognition, and political machinery over age symbolism.”
Today, Nigeria’s estimated population stands at over 220 million people, with more than 60 percent under the age of 35. On paper, this should be a demographic dividend. In practice, however, youthfulness has not translated into transformative governance outcomes, even in areas where younger leaders are already in positions of authority.
Across the National Assembly, state Houses of Assembly, and local government councils, there is a strong presence of individuals under 50. Several governors in recent political cycles have been under that age bracket. Yet the performance record in many of these jurisdictions does not suggest that youth automatically produces better governance. States led by younger executives still grapple with debt overhangs, salary arrears, poor infrastructure, and limited innovation in public service delivery.
The uncomfortable truth is that Nigeria has been governed by young men before, and that era did not usher in the paradise experience.
General Yakubu Gowon became Head of State at 32. Murtala Muhammed took power at 37. Olusegun Obasanjo was 38 when he first became military head of state. Even President Muhammadu Buhari was just 33 when he became military governor of the North-Eastern State in 1975. Earlier still, M.T. Mbu became a federal minister at 24, and Anthony Enahoro moved the motion for Nigeria’s independence at 30.
Youth was present, but governance challenges persisted.
If age were the determining factor, Nigeria would have resolved its structural weaknesses decades ago. Instead, what has endured across generations is a pattern of weak institutions, patronage politics, policy inconsistency, and poor accountability frameworks.
The 2018 “Not Too Young To Run” Act was rightly celebrated for lowering age thresholds for elective office. It reduced the minimum age for presidential candidates from 40 to 35; governors and senators from 35 to 30; and members of the House of Representatives and state assemblies to 25. The reform democratised access, but access alone does not equal electoral viability.
In the 2019 presidential election, several candidates in their 30s and 40s entered the race, including Fela Durotoye and Omoyele Sowore. They campaigned actively and offered generational alternatives. Nigerian voters, including millions of young people, overwhelmingly chose established political figures. Youths did not vote in large numbers for youth candidates.
That contradiction reveals something deeper: that Nigerians may desire generational change rhetorically, but when faced with the ballot, they often prioritise perceived experience, structure, name recognition, and political machinery over age symbolism.
Moreover, the #EndSARS protests exposed another sobering reality. Many officers of the disbanded Special Anti-Robbery Squad were themselves young Nigerians. Age did not prevent abuse of power, as character and accountability did.
This reinforces a key point that leadership quality is shaped less by biological age and more by values, competence, institutional checks, and political culture.
Globally, leadership effectiveness has never correlated neatly with age. Some older leaders have driven reform and economic transformation. Some younger leaders have mismanaged opportunity, as what distinguishes success stories are clarity of vision, technocratic depth, ability to build teams, and institutional discipline.
Nigeria’s real governance crisis lies in three areas.
First, political party structures reward loyalty over merit. Candidate emergence is often determined by patronage networks and financial muscle rather than demonstrated competence. This affects both young and old aspirants.
Second, institutions remain weak, as anti-corruption agencies, regulatory bodies, and civil service systems are frequently undermined by political interference. A capable 35-year-old operating within a broken institutional framework will struggle as much as a 65-year-old.
Third, civic participation remains inconsistent, as Nigeria’s voter turnout has declined in recent elections, hovering below 30 per cent in 2023. A young population that disengages from the voting process cannot simultaneously complain about leadership recycling.
The way forward will include Nigeria shifting the debate from ‘old versus young’ to ‘competent versus incompetent’.
Political parties should institutionalise transparent primaries, leadership training pipelines, and performance-based criteria for candidate selection. Young aspirants must invest not only in talks but also in policy literacy, economic understanding, and coalition building. Electoral reform must strengthen internal party democracy and reduce the influence of money politics.
Equally important, civic education must intensify. A population of 220 million cannot rely on social media outrage as a substitute for organised political participation. Youth engagement must extend beyond protests to sustained grassroots mobilisation, voter registration drives, and policy monitoring.
Finally, governance outcomes must be measured by data (economic growth, poverty reduction, inflation management, security metrics, and service delivery) rather than the generational identity of those in office.
Age can bring experience, and youth can bring innovation, but neither guarantees integrity, discipline, nor competence.
Nigeria does not suffer from an age problem. It suffers from a leadership capacity problem, one that cuts across generations.
Until the country prioritises merit, strengthens institutions, and demands accountability regardless of age, the recycling of leaders, young or old, will continue. And the real issue will remain unresolved.
