By
Dr. Sani Sa’idu Baba
drssbaba@yahoo.com
At what point does age become a liability in leadership, and at what point does experience become an asset? This is one question Nigerians must confront honestly as the 2027 presidential election approaches. Too often, the debate about older political leaders begins and ends with their date of birth, as though the number of years a person has lived automatically determines his capacity to think, decide, lead and deliver.
The debate over Atiku Abubakar has increasingly followed this pattern. His age is repeatedly presented as an argument against him, while his supporters point to decades of public service, executive experience, political exposure and continued engagement with the country’s most difficult questions. But perhaps Nigerians should ask a more fundamental question: Does age itself make a leader incapable, or is it what a leader does with the experience accumulated over those years that truly matters?
Brazil offers Nigeria an interesting lesson. President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, in his 80s, returned to the Brazilian presidency after already serving two terms. The Indexa Pesquisas survey conducted among Brazilian voters between May 22 and 24, 2026, provides an illuminating perspective on the question of age and leadership. It revealed that 67% of respondents said Lula’s age does not impair his ability to govern Brazil, while only 15% regarded his age as a major obstacle and another 14% as a minor obstacle. The message is striking: for a substantial majority of Brazilians, the question was not simply how old Lula is, but whether his age actually prevents him from governing effectively. It is on this basis that they appear to prefer an older, experienced president to a younger opponent still learning through trial and error.
And that is where Brazil has something important to teach Nigeria about Atiku Abubakar.
Atiku is not a political newcomer seeking to learn the mechanics of national governance after entering Aso Rock. He served as Vice President of Nigeria for eight years and has spent decades operating at the highest levels of public life. He has been deeply involved in debates over the economy, federalism, institutional reform, private sector development and the future direction of the Nigerian state. Nigerians may agree or disagree with his ideas, his record or his political choices, but dismissing such a long political career simply because of age reduces a complex leadership question to a single statistic. More importantly, his years in public service have given him an understanding of Nigeria’s political and economic machinery that cannot simply be acquired overnight.
So, when does age become a liability in leadership?
The answer should not be found in the birth certificate. Age becomes a liability when the experience accumulated over decades is not translated into sound judgment, effective decisions and tangible results. Conversely, age becomes an asset when decades of experience produce deeper understanding, institutional knowledge, strategic judgment and the ability to avoid mistakes that younger leaders may encounter for the first time.
This distinction is particularly important in Nigeria’s present circumstances. The country is confronting economic pressures, insecurity, unemployment, institutional weaknesses and deep social divisions. At such a moment, Nigerians should be asking candidates much harder questions than, “How old are you?” What have you learned from your years in public life? What is your record? What are your solutions? What evidence supports your promises? What lessons have you drawn from previous administrations? And, most importantly, can your experience be converted into better governance?
This is also why comparisons involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu inevitably invite a broader conversation about the relationship between age and performance. The relevant question is not whether an older person can lead; Brazil’s experience demonstrates why that proposition is too simplistic. The more meaningful question is whether a leader’s experience, judgment and decisions have translated into the kind of governance Nigerians expect from the presidency. Age should therefore be examined alongside performance, judgment, ideas and results, not in isolation.
For Atiku Abubakar, this is the real debate. The question should not merely be whether he is old. It should be whether the experience gathered across decades of public service represents a resource Nigeria can draw upon at a time when the country needs experienced hands, tested ideas and a clear understanding of its institutional challenges.
Brazilian voters, according to the cited Indexa findings, appear to have demonstrated an important distinction: being old is not the same thing as being incapable. That distinction deserves serious consideration in Nigeria.
After all, a nation does not elect a birth certificate; it elects a human being. The real question in 2027, therefore, should not be, “How old is Atiku Abubakar?” It should be: “What can Atiku Abubakar’s years of experience, political exposure and understanding of Nigeria contribute to the country’s future?”
And on that question, Atiku Abubakar has already spent decades providing his answer. His record, experience, ideas and understanding of Nigeria are there for Nigerians to examine, including his recently announced measures to immediately bring the poor Nigerians back to decent living if elected in 2027. The question is no longer simply whether Atiku has accumulated enough years, it is whether Nigerians are prepared to look beyond the number of those years and judge what those years have produced.
That is the question Nigerians should be asking.
