In Nigeria’s long and troubled democratic journey, one debate keeps resurfacing whenever elections approach or appointments are made: should governance and representation be driven by experience or by character? While experience has its place, Nigeria’s lived reality increasingly shows that character, not experience, is the more decisive requirement for leadership in today’s political environment.
Nigeria is not short of experienced politicians. Many of those who have governed at federal, state and local levels have spent decades within the system. They understand how government works, how budgets are passed, how committees function and how power is negotiated. Yet, despite this abundance of experience, governance outcomes remain poor. Public services are weak, infrastructure gaps persist, poverty deepens and corruption continues to erode trust.
This contradiction exposes a central truth: experience without character does not deliver good governance. In fact, it often worsens outcomes. When ethical restraint is absent, experience becomes a tool for manipulation rather than service. Institutional knowledge is used to exploit loopholes, influence is deployed to protect vested interests, and political skill is channelled into personal enrichment.
Global governance data reinforces this reality. Nigeria has consistently ranked in the lower tiers of the Corruption Perceptions Index published by Transparency International. These rankings did not occur under inexperienced leadership. They occurred during periods dominated by seasoned political actors who understood the system thoroughly, but lacked the moral discipline to reform it. The problem, therefore, has never been ignorance of governance processes. It has been the absence of character in those entrusted with power.
Experience answers the question of capacity, but character answers the question of intent. A leader may know how to navigate government, but only character determines whether that knowledge will be used to build institutions or to undermine them. In Nigeria’s context, where checks and balances are weak and informal power networks often override formal rules, character becomes the most critical safeguard against abuse.
Comparative global examples are instructive. Singapore’s transformation under Lee Kuan Yew did not begin with an abundance of technocratic experience. It began with uncompromising personal discipline, a strict stance against corruption and a leadership culture that rewarded integrity and punished abuse. Over time, competence followed, institutions strengthened and economic performance soared. Today, Singapore is among the least corrupt and most efficient states in the world.
Rwanda offers another example. Emerging from genocide, the country lacked both resources and deep bureaucratic experience. Yet leadership under Paul Kagame prioritised accountability, zero tolerance for corruption and performance-based governance. The result has been measurable improvements in public service delivery, infrastructure and governance indicators across multiple sectors. Once again, character laid the foundation upon which experience was built.
Even within Nigeria, the pattern is visible. Leaders perceived as personally disciplined and restrained, regardless of political disagreements surrounding them, tend to command greater public trust and often deliver more consistent results. Former president Muhammadu Buhari rose to power largely on the strength of perceived personal integrity rather than superior technocratic credentials. While his administration faced policy and implementation challenges, the early public confidence he enjoyed reflected how deeply Nigerians value character in leadership.
The Nigerian state operates within a fragile institutional environment. Laws exist, but enforcement is uneven. Oversight bodies exist, but are often compromised. In such a system, character becomes the first and most reliable line of defence. Countries with strong institutions may survive leaders of poor character; countries with weak institutions cannot. Nigeria belongs firmly in the latter category.
Representation makes the case for character even more compelling. An elected representative is not merely a legislator; they are a trustee of public trust. They speak on behalf of communities, influence the allocation of scarce resources and make decisions that affect lives far beyond their own. Without character, representation degenerates into transaction. Constituencies are traded for personal advantage and public interest becomes secondary to private gain.
Experience can teach someone how to speak in parliament or navigate committee politics. Character determines who they speak for when pressure mounts and temptations arise. That distinction is at the heart of Nigeria’s governance crisis.
Nigeria’s central leadership failure has never been a lack of experience. It has been the persistent elevation of experience without moral scrutiny. Until character becomes the primary filter for governance and representation, the country will continue to recycle familiar faces and reproduce familiar failures.
In today’s Nigeria, experience is useful, but character is indispensable. Without it, no amount of experience can deliver the governance Nigerians deserve.
Oblong@60 Lecture series
By Hon. Chima Nnadi-Oforgu
Duruebube Ihiagwa ófó asato
Ndukaku III of Ihiagwa
OBLONG MEDIA UNLIMITED 
Leave a comment