Abuja governors

A governor who abandons his state for the comfort of Abuja – the seat of power – is not a leader but a political tourist. Many state chief executives have turned the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) into their refuge, leaving behind the people who entrusted them with power.

Their absence is not an oversight. It is a calculated abdication of duty, a betrayal of governance, and an insult to democracy. They are drawn to Abuja not by the pressing needs of their states but by the allure of political influence, power games and backdoor negotiations that serve their ambitions.

Instead of governing with presence and urgency, they choose to remain in the corridors of the presidency, chasing relevance and patronage. The failure of these governors to stay in their states is not just a matter of preference but a clear abdication of duty.

A governor is elected to govern, to be physically present, to see and experience the realities of his people firsthand. By choosing to govern remotely from Abuja, they not only weaken their states’ institutions but also show a glaring disregard for the oath they swore to uphold.

Leadership cannot be exercised from a distance—it demands presence, responsiveness, and engagement. The consequences are dire. A governor who governs from afar creates a vacuum where disorder, inefficiency, and lawlessness thrive. Security deteriorates, civil servants become unaccountable, and critical projects suffer from neglect.

In many states, crime festers, roads crumble, and hospitals, among other key public service institutions, barely function, while the so-called chief executives remain lost in Abuja’s political intrigues. State governors who spend more time in Abuja than in their own capitals expose their incompetence.

If they were truly effective leaders, they would not need to rely on federal connections to get things done. Competent governance is about driving local solutions, maximizing state resources, and creating policies that uplift citizens.

Instead, these absentee governors prefer to loiter around Abuja, seeking political favours rather than addressing the deepening poverty, insecurity, and infrastructural decay in their states. The people are left with nothing but empty rhetoric, recycled excuses, and deepening frustration.

Without their governors present to provide leadership and take swift action, local officials operate with impunity, and the most basic government responsibilities become paralyzed. A government disconnected from its people is no government at all.

The worst-hit by this reckless behavior are ordinary citizens. While their governors enjoy the luxury of Abuja, the people are left at the mercy of ineffective bureaucrats, corrupt state officials, and unchecked insecurity.

The absence of leadership breeds anarchy, as criminals, political thugs, and even rogue government officials take advantage of the power vacuum to exploit the system for their gain. A state without its leader is a state in slow collapse. Even labour leaders have decried this worrisome trend.

The President of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), Comrade Joe Ajaero, recently condemned state governors who have turned Abuja into their second home while neglecting pressing issues back in their states. He noted that while workers are battling unpaid salaries, poor working conditions, and economic hardship, some governors are more concerned with securing political appointments and lobbying for influence in the federal government.

Ajaero described their absence as a clear indication of leadership failure, urging them to return to their states and take charge of governance instead of governing by proxy. This culture of absentee leadership also exposes the structural decay of Nigeria’s federalism.

When state governors behave more like lobbyists than administrators, it confirms that power is too centralized and that state institutions have become mere shadows of governance. Instead of strengthening local governance structures, these leaders reinforce a culture of dependency, where states wait on federal handouts rather than innovating solutions to their challenges.

This dangerous culture of absenteeism also emboldens state lawmakers and commissioners to act with impunity. With the governor missing in action, accountability fades. Commissioners become mini-governors, making self-serving decisions without oversight.

State budgets are mismanaged, public funds are looted, and projects are abandoned. When a leader is absent, governance becomes a free-for-all, where personal interests trump public service. No country can develop when its leaders are more interested in political access than policy impact.

More troubling is the fact that these governors do not just relocate to Abuja temporarily. Many have made it their second home, spending weeks, sometimes months, away from their states. They govern by proxy, issuing instructions over the phone while their citizens suffer.

Ironically, the governors who refuse to stay in their states are the same ones who campaign vigorously during elections, promising heaven on earth to the electorate. They tour every local government, kneel before traditional rulers, and make endless pledges.

But once in office, they disappear, choosing the comfort of Abuja over the cries of their people. This is not governance—it is deceitful politicking at its worst. How can a governor understand the plight of his people when he is hundreds of kilometers away, insulated from their daily struggles?

Leadership demands proximity. It demands presence. It demands a leader who walks the streets, visits hospitals, inspects schools, and listens to the cries of his people firsthand. State capitals are not ceremonial locations to be visited only when convenient.

A governor’s duty is to be the first responder to his people’s needs. He should be the one leading the charge against insecurity, ensuring roads are motorable, schools are functional, and hospitals are equipped. This cannot be achieved by making Abuja a permanent base.

True leadership is about immersion, about living among the people and feeling their pain as they feel it. A leader who is absent cannot claim to understand the people’s plight. Ironically, these same governors who flee their states to Abuja are the first to complain about the overcentralization of power.

Yet, rather than build viable state institutions, they weaken them further by running to Abuja at every opportunity. They reduce their own relevance, making a mockery of the very office they occupy. Instead of proving that states can function as independent centers of development, they validate the argument that Nigeria cannot function without excessive federal control.

A governor who cannot stay in his state does not deserve to lead. If a governor finds it more convenient to operate from Abuja, then he should resign and allow someone who is willing to lead with full commitment. Governance is not a hobby that can be done from afar; it is a sacred duty that requires presence, sacrifice, and responsibility.

The people must stop tolerating absentee leadership. They must demand better, expose the charade, and insist that those elected to serve do so with dedication—or step aside. A democracy that tolerates absentee leadership is a democracy in decline.

The citizens must demand more from their governors, hold them accountable, and refuse to accept excuses. Leadership is not a privilege; it is a responsibility. And those who fail to honour that responsibility must be shown the way out.