Buzzapp Master 
The recent renaming of Abuja’s International Conference Centre after President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, following a ₦39 billion renovation, raises critical questions about priorities in Nigerian governance and the troubling rise of political personalisation in public institutions.
Constructed in 1991 under the Babangida administration at a cost of ₦240 million, the facility was originally built to host the 27th OAU summit, relocated to Abuja due to regional insecurity. Adjusted for inflation, a renovation of such scale is difficult to justify in economic terms, particularly against the backdrop of Nigeria’s ongoing cost-of-living crisis and dwindling fiscal space. But the expenditure is not the only cause for concern. The decision to name the site after the incumbent president continues an unsettling pattern of branding public infrastructure with the name of a sitting leader, one who had no documented role in the facility’s conception or early development.
Read also: Is FG really fighting insurgency or playing politics with human lives?
President Tinubu’s name now adorns an expanding list of national assets: an international airport in Minna, a barracks in Asokoro, a polytechnic in Gwarimpa, the National Assembly’s new library, and even a proposed university. Such actions are traditionally reserved for leaders who have completed their tenures and whose legacies have been evaluated by posterity. To do so mid-presidency raises questions not just about appropriateness but also about judgement.
Nigeria’s historical experience with military rule has made the symbolism of public institutions especially sensitive. Naming state-owned facilities after sitting leaders is not merely a symbolic gesture; it carries institutional and democratic implications. It risks conflating the office of the presidency with personal ambition, eroding the boundaries between the individual and the state.
“Leadership is best remembered not for how many buildings carry a name but for how many lives are lifted by policies. Former South African President Nelson Mandela never required monuments to secure his legacy; his choices, not his titles, defined him.”
There are political consequences to this pattern. While past presidents have had roads, stadiums, or hospitals named in their honour, these were typically posthumous or after significant contributions. The rapid pace of eponymous declarations in Tinubu’s name, barely two years into his term, may be perceived by many Nigerians as an attempt to enshrine his presence prematurely, particularly in a period where public dissatisfaction with his administration remains high.
Indeed, the president’s reform agenda has faced resistance, especially in northern Nigeria, where fuel subsidy removal and currency devaluation have deepened inflationary pressures. In this climate, the optics of leaders celebrating themselves through state-sponsored gestures appear disconnected from the everyday concerns of citizens.
A more troubling development is the willingness of government officials to indulge such tendencies. The Senate President recently led a public rendition of a religious hymn adapted to substitute the president’s name for God’s: an episode that should have prompted national reflection. Instead, it revealed the extent to which institutional sycophancy is being normalised in contemporary political culture.
Nigeria’s democracy cannot afford the erosion of meritocratic and institutional values. Institutions should stand as symbols of national unity, not personal legacy. The repurposing of national assets to serve vanity rather than vision sends a dispiriting message to the public and distorts the priorities of governance.
There is a broader lesson for emerging democracies. Leadership is best remembered not for how many buildings carry a name but for how many lives are lifted by policies. Former South African President Nelson Mandela never required monuments to secure his legacy; his choices, not his titles, defined him.
President Tinubu’s legacy is still in the making. His administration faces serious economic challenges, from tackling youth unemployment to restoring investor confidence and managing debt sustainability. These issues demand humility, discipline, and a focus on institution-building rather than personality politics.
Read also: The Good Man’s Burden: Morality and power in modern politics
As such, the presidency should consider instructing a reversal of the renaming of the International Conference Centre. Restoring its original name would be a small but meaningful gesture of leadership, one that acknowledges the contributions of those who came before and signals a commitment to history over hubris.
Nigeria has no shortage of leaders who seek validation. What it needs, urgently, are leaders who build lasting systems. Personal honour is best left to future historians. For now, governance must be seen to serve the governed.
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings