About this time some 1,993 years ago, the most outstanding Personality to have walked the earth, Jesus The Christ was executed in Jerusalem, an event so profound that it split the record of time into what we now know as before and after Christ. His death has, for centuries, been interpreted as the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of humanity.

Yet, beyond the theology of redemption lies something perhaps even more instructive for temporal leadership: the model of sacrificial, purposeful, and transformational leadership that He demonstrated in the thirty-three years He walked among men.

The essence of His leadership was not merely in gathering followers, but in shaping them into reflections of Himself. In His final instructions, He emphasised the making of disciples.

That is, men who would not just listen, but become like Him. This principle of reproduction, of building others in one’s image is the defining trait of enduring leadership. Leaders who succeed in this regard do not merely lead for a season; they live on through the convictions, conduct, and courage of their followers.

Even before His crucifixion, the evidence of this transformation was visible. Peter Simon Jonah was identified not by face but by speech:

“Surely you also are one of them, for your speech betrays you,” he was told by those who stood around the fireplace as Jesus faced the Sanhedrin.

That moment, by a mere fireplace on a cold night, revealed a profound truth: true discipleship imprints identity beyond disguise. Even in denial, Peter could not escape the resemblance.

After the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, the legacy only deepened. In Antioch of Syria, followers who lived like Him were first called Christians. Not because they bore His physical features, but because they embodied His spirit, His teachings, and His mission. That is leadership at its most powerful when the leader’s absence does not diminish influence.

In Nigeria’s political history, very few figures have achieved such enduring ideological imprint. Among them stands Obafemi Awolowo. His followers, the Awoists, were not merely political supporters; they were ideological carriers. They embraced his philosophy of education, welfarism, and structured governance. Decades after his death, Awolowo’s ideas continue to resonate, not because of nostalgia, but because they were clearly defined, deeply rooted, and consistently propagated.

A different phenomenon emerged with Muhammadu Buhari. His appeal was built less on articulated philosophy and more on perceived personal discipline, that is, his austere lifestyle and anti-corruption posture.

His followers, the Buharists, rallied around an image rather than an ideology. But image, without intellectual and philosophical depth, is fragile. It could not endure.

One former governor, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai became a striking symbol of that era’s political devotion. As a sitting governor, he was repeatedly seen squatting to greet Muhammadu Buhari, a gesture that underscored not just loyalty, but near-reverential submission to his leader.

Yet, with the passage of time, the carefully cultivated image of the Buharists as moral puritans has steadily unravelled. Several figures once counted within Buhari’s inner circle have found themselves facing allegations of misconduct, casting long shadows over the ethical claims that once defined the movement. What was projected as a disciplined, incorruptible bloc has increasingly appeared fragile under the weight of scrutiny.

Perhaps most telling was the shift that occurred even before Buhari’s departure from office. As his second term wound down, cracks within the fold became impossible to ignore. In a dramatic turn, El-Rufai himself reportedly took the extraordinary step of challenging Buhari in court—a move that symbolised the disintegration of what had once seemed an unshakeable political fraternity.

By the time Buhari exited power, the phenomenon that birthed the Buharists had largely dissipated. The once cohesive bloc had thinned out, its adherents scattered, its defining ethos blurred. In the end, what remained was not a sustained ideological movement, but a fading memory of a political moment that failed to reproduce itself beyond the tenure of its central figure.

Now, at the centre of Nigeria’s political landscape stands Bola Tinubu. Around him has grown a formidable political base; the BATists. In less than three years, they have become one of the most aggressive and visible political forces in the history of the country, spanning grassroots mobilisers to elite advocates. Their symbol, the Asiwaju cap, has transformed into a recognisable national political identity.

Yet, beneath this growing movement lies a fundamental question: what is the philosophy that binds them? What enduring idea defines the BATists beyond loyalty to the person of Bola Ahmed Tinubu?

Where Jesus is remembered for redemption and Awolowo for educational and social transformation, what will be the defining doctrine of Tinubu’s political movement? At present, the answer remains unclear. The BATists, diverse in composition, from motor park operatives to intellectuals, appear united more by allegiance than by a clearly articulated ideological compass.

This is the challenge before Tinubu. Leadership at the highest level is not sustained by mobilization alone; it is anchored in meaning. It requires a coherent philosophy that followers can internalize, defend, and propagate even in the leader’s absence. Without this, movements risk becoming echoes of power rather than instruments of lasting change.

Nigeria today stands at a critical juncture, facing economic strain, social tension, and security failures. In such times, leadership must rise above personality and evolve into principle. Tinubu must, therefore, articulate a doctrine, clear, compelling, and actionable, that defines not just his administration, but his legacy.

History offers perspective. Nearly a century after the death of Christ, historians who were never Christians like Tacitus and Flavius Josephus still wrote of His impact. Their testimonies were not driven by sentiment, but by the undeniable imprint He left on humanity.

The question, then, is inevitable: what will history say of Tinubu decades from now? Will it speak of a leader who merely commanded loyalty, or one who inspired conviction? Will it recall a movement built on slogans, or one grounded in ideas?

For in the end, leadership is not measured by the volume of praise in its time, but by the depth of influence it leaves behind. The chants of today may fade, but the philosophy of a truly transformative leader endures.