I may well not have indulged in the controversy surrounding Kemi Badenoch’s ill-statement about Nigeria had it remained a discourse among low profile Nigerians. But when I read a piece on her by Bishop Mathiew Hassan Kuka, whom I respect very greatly, I knew the matter has gone up to the highest echelon of the Nigerian society. Bishop Kuka, by all standards, is a highly placed, powerful, respected and influential Nigerian, whose views not only deeply resonate in society but also motivate and mold public opinion at home and abroad. Hence, when I saw his write up expressing his considered thoughts and a prayer on her, and conveying a perspective that I most respectfully do not wholly agree with, I decided to pen down my view as a way of averting people’s minds to another perspective.

2. While reading Bishop Kukah’s piece extolling Kemi Badenoch’s ascension to the leadership of the United Kingdom’s Conservative Party, one could see how well-meaning and hopeful the erudite clergyman is regarding the first Black leader of Britain’s major political party. However, with all due regards, the respected Bishop’s article omitted to critically evaluate the broader implications of her political trajectory vis~a~vis her controversial disavowal of her Nigerian ancestry. Even though Badenoch’s rise is, indeed, a remarkable feat of political progress, her widely reported comments on Nigeria, characterizing the country in a reductive and dismissive manner, reveal not only a lack of strategic foresight but also an underestimation of the importance of identity in politics.
3. Surely, Badenoch’s accomplishment is historic, for whatever it is worth. Still, it cannot justify Bishop Kukah’s piece glorifying her status without interrogating the consequences of her rhetoric on Nigeria and the broader African diaspora. I believe it is essential to distinguish between her personal success and the lost opportunity for a more inclusive political narrative that embraces and uplifts her heritage rather than repudiating it. In essence, therefore, my perspective invites a reflection on the responsibility of political leaders to balance personal ambition with the broader implications of their narratives on identity, legacy and global solidarity.
4. In politics, identity is power. Leaders such as Rishi Sunak in the UK and Barack Obama in the US exemplify how embracing one’s ancestry enhances relatability and strengthens their political narrative. Sunak’s proud acknowledgment of his Indian heritage did not diminish his Britishness but, instead, fortified his position as a symbol of the UK’s multicultural promise. Similarly, Obama’s Kenyan roots became an integral part of his message of hope and global unity, projecting the United States as a melting pot of global identities.
5. By contrast, Badenoch’s diminutive remarks about Nigeria signify not only a strategic misstep but portrays her poor understanding of politics, especially British politics that she somehow found herself in. Instead of weaving her heritage into a narrative of resilience and aspiration to her advantage, as Obama and Sunak perceptively did, she distanced herself from it, denouncing her ancestral home to a stereotype of corruption, terrorism and dysfunction. This approach, while seemingly pandering to her base, undermines her long-term political credibility. In an increasingly globalized world, where diasporic ties are increasingly becoming vital in politics, Badenoch’s dismissal of her roots alienates potential allies and supporters, and gave the British society a lethal political weapon against her.
6. Anyone with an elementary knowledge and understanding of British politics will tell that its underlying trait is treachery. From Christopher Cromwell to Keir Starmer, British politics is characterized by its cutthroat pragmatism. Yes, Badenoch’s rise within the Conservative Party is commendable, but it is naïve to assume her ascent will shield her from the entrenched treachery of British political culture. Thus, any romanticization of her accomplishment that ignores this historical pattern of the British political establishment co-opting “outsiders” as symbols of diversity while swiftly discarding them when expedient is a faulty narrative.
7. Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May, both celebrated female leaders, faced brutal exits orchestrated by their party. Badenoch, as a Black woman and child of immigrants, will face even greater scrutiny. By alienating her ancestral identity, she forfeits the solidarity and moral support that could cushion her inevitable fall from grace. When the treacherous British political knives are out, and they will be soon enough, pilloring her and making reference to her ancestry that she denied, not only Badenoch won’t have any answer to that but she won’t also have a supporting ancestral country. At that time, she will know that she is not English, and won’t ever be. Then she will find herself politically homeless, neither accepted as fully British nor embraced by the Nigerian diaspora she disowned. The massive rejection of Kamala Harris by the conservative white majority of America in last month’s presidential election is a lesson to note.
8. But respected Bishop Kukah’s argument downplays this significant aspect of Badenoch’s Nigerian roots, suggesting that her critics are motivated by envy or misplaced nationalism. With all respect, this perspective misjudges the symbolic power of ancestry in global politics. Ordinarily, within the framework of current liberal democracy in the West, Badenoch’s background as the child of Nigerian immigrants holds transformative potential for her rise to British Prime Ministership. Her position offers a unique platform to challenge stereotypes about Africa and its diaspora, showcasing the contributions of Nigerians to global progress. But her denigrating views of her ancestral homeland put her out as untrustworthy. Nigeria has many great citizens holding critical global leadership positions who remain proud of their Nigerian heritage, such as Dr. Akinwumi Adesina of AfDB, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala of WTO, Hajia Amina Mohammed of UNO and a host of others holding high elective, appointive and bureaucratic positions across the globe.
9. Instead of leveraging this potential, Badenoch has chosen not just to distance herself from her heritage but even denigrate it. This decision reflects not strength, but weakness on her part – a poor cognitive ability to recognize the profound interconnectedness of personal identity and political success! By rejecting her roots, Badenoch loses the opportunity to redefine what it means to be British while remaining proudly of Nigerian descent. Though Bishop Kukah posits that Nigeria should rally around Badenoch as a symbol of diasporic excellence, I am afraid her rhetoric does little to inspire such support. Her statements reinforcing negative stereotypes about Nigeria, perpetuating a narrative of dysfunction rather than resilience, suggest that she does not need nor deserve the support of Nigeria and patriotic Nigerians.
10. Figures like Sunak and Obama succeeded by turning their ancestral identities into assets, celebrating their heritage while advocating for progress. Badenoch’s approach, however, suggests a lack of pride and confidence in her roots, which makes her unfit for public trust even by the British society. Nigeria does not need people who exploit its weaknesses for personal gain but rather those who highlight its potential and advocate for its betterment.
11. While respected Bishop Kukah’s admiration for Badenoch’s achievements is understandable, his piece overlooks the strategic and moral failings of her approach to identity and politics. True leadership requires not only personal ambition but also the capacity to inspire and uplift others. Badenoch’s disavowal of her Nigerian roots is not merely a personal choice but a political error that undermines her credibility and integrity to give good leadership. In celebrating Badenoch’s rise, let us not miss the opportunity to challenge her to do better – to embrace the complexity of her identity and use her position to advance a more inclusive and representative vision of leadership. Without this, Badenoch’s political legacy will remain a tale of missed opportunities and a betrayal of the very heritage that made her story possible.