The possibility of Seyi Tinubu, the son of the President of Nigeria, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu contesting for the Lagos State governorship in 2027 has become a significant topic of public discourse, raising important questions about the dynamics of political dynasties and democratic values in Nigeria. While his constitutional eligibility to vie for the position under Section 177 of the Nigerian Constitution is undisputed, the discussion brings to light broader issues of political inclusivity, leadership by merit, and the role of family legacy in modern democracy.

The Nigerian Constitution outlines clear qualifications for anyone aspiring to the office of governor. A candidate must be a citizen of Nigeria by birth, at least 35 years old, a member of a political party, and educated to at least the secondary school level or its equivalent. Based on these criteria, Seyi Tinubu, as a citizen by birth and meeting the age and educational requirements, is constitutionally qualified to run for the office, provided he secures the sponsorship of a political party.

Political dynasties are not exclusive to Nigeria; they are a global phenomenon that has influenced governance in many parts of the world. In the United States, for example, the Bush family has held significant political positions, including George H.W. Bush as the 41st President, George W. Bush as the 43rd President and former Governor of Texas, and Jeb Bush as the Governor of Florida. Similarly, the Kennedy family produced John F. Kennedy, the 35th President, and prominent figures like Robert Kennedy, a U.S. Senator and Attorney General, and Ted Kennedy, a long-serving U.S. Senator. The Clinton family also left its mark, with Bill Clinton serving as the 42nd President and Hillary Clinton as a Secretary of State and presidential candidate. These families earned their positions through electoral victories, reinforcing the importance of public trust and the democratic process.

If Seyi Tinubu decides to run, his candidacy will face considerable  scrutiny. Questions about whether his aspirations are rooted in personal merit or familial advantage will dominate public discourse. In Nigeria, where perceptions of nepotism and concerns about equitable access to leadership persist, the candidacy of a high-profile figure like Seyi Tinubu will polarize opinions. To succeed in such an environment, he would need to present a compelling policy agenda and demonstrate his capability to govern effectively. His father’s legacy as a former Lagos governor and current president could either bolster his credibility or attract criticism, depending on public sentiment.

Ultimately, the decision rests with the electorate. Lagosians possess the constitutional authority to evaluate candidates based on their merits and to choose leaders who align with their aspirations for the state. Democracy thrives on the principle that leadership is determined by the people, not inherited by default. Seyi Tinubu’s constitutional right to contest for the governorship reflects the democratic ideals enshrined in Nigeria’s laws. However, his candidacy, like that of any other aspirant, must be judged on its merit, the policies he proposes, and the competence he demonstrates. In the end, the will of the people should guide leadership selection, ensuring that governance remains a reflection of collective choice rather than familial legacy.

Kenechukwu Aguolu

The announcement of a N20 reduction in the ex-depot price of petrol by Dangote Refinery, from N990 to N970 per litre, has sparked widespread reactions across Nigeria. While some applaud the gesture as a step towards addressing the nation’s high fuel costs, others see it as negligible, given the current economic realities. This divide was evident in a conversation overheard between two drivers washing their company vehicles in Ogba, Ikeja. One driver dismissed the price cut with disdain, remarking, “Wetin be N20 wey nor fit buy chewing gum?” This sentiment encapsulates the skepticism many Nigerians feel about the purported relief.

The Dangote Refinery’s statement, signed by its Group Chief Branding and Communication Officer, Anthony Chiejina, framed the price reduction as an end-of-year gesture of appreciation to Nigerians and a nod to the government’s support. The company emphasized its commitment to ensuring the availability of quality, environmentally friendly fuel while ramping up production to meet domestic demand.

Despite the goodwill attached to this reduction, the economic landscape makes it difficult for the average Nigerian to celebrate. Current pump prices range between N1,025 and N1,090 per litre across different marketers. For a country grappling with economic hardship, inflation, and a rising cost of living, the N20 reduction appears more symbolic than substantial.

To understand the frustration of Nigerians, one must delve into the economic context of inflation and diminished purchasing Power. This is as Nigeria’s inflation rate has skyrocketed, eroding the purchasing power of its citizens. Items that were affordable a year ago now cost multiples of their previous prices. Chewing gum, used metaphorically by the driver, indeed costs more than N20 in most urban areas today.

In a similar vein, looking at the issue from the perspective of high cost of transportation, there is no denying the fact that the fuel prices directly impact transportation costs, which in turn affect the prices of goods and services. With fuel already selling at over N1, 000 per litre, a N20 reduction is unlikely to significantly lower transport fares or bring relief to consumers.

Again, from the prism of household budget constraints, it is pragmatic that for an average household that consumes 50 litres of petrol per month, the N20 reduction translates to a savings of just N1,000 monthly. This amount barely covers the cost of basic groceries or utilities in today’s Nigeria.

Against the foregoing backdrop, it is expedient to opine that Dangote Refinery, though, operates as a private enterprise, must strike a balance between profitability and public goodwill. Critics argue that the refinery’s prices remain uncompetitive compared to other suppliers, as evidenced by previous complaints from the Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria (IPMAN). Dangote’s reported stockpile of 500 million litres of petrol suggests capacity, but pricing remains a contentious issue.

The refinery’s effort to work directly with stakeholders like PETROAN and IPMAN signals a willingness to address these concerns. However, the logistics of fuel distribution and the associated costs could continue to hinder a significant reduction in pump prices.

In fact, the public’s lukewarm reception to the price cut underscores a broader disillusionment with Nigeria’s economic management. Citizens feel that the government and major players in the oil sector, like Dangote Refinery, must do more to alleviate their plight.

While symbolic gestures like price reductions may garner media attention, they fail to address the structural issues plaguing Nigeria’s energy sector. Nigerians need substantial reforms that translate to real savings and improved living standards.

In a similar vein, the public remains skeptical of promises to lower pump prices. Past assurances by government officials and private entities have often fallen short, leaving Nigerians to bear the brunt of rising costs.

At this juncture, it is expedient to ask, “Which way forward?” To answer the foregoing salient question, it is germane to opine that the skepticism surrounding the N20 reduction calls for a more robust approach to tackling fuel affordability in Nigeria. Some key recommendations cut across comprehensive subsidy reform, enhancing refining capacity, strengthening competition, and addressing distribution inefficiencies.

In fact, the removal of subsidies earlier this year has left Nigerians struggling with higher fuel costs. While subsidy removal is a necessary reform, its implementation should be accompanied by targeted palliatives to cushion the impact on vulnerable populations.

Given the foregoing, there is an urgent need to enhance refining capacity in Nigeria. In fact, beyond Dangote Refinery, Nigeria must invest in reviving its moribund refineries to reduce reliance on imports and bring down production costs.

Again, there is also the expediency and exigency of strengthening competition. This is as encouraging more players in the oil refining sector could lead to competitive pricing and better deals for consumers.

Not only that, there is equally an urgent need to address distribution inefficiencies. The reason for the foregoing cannot be farfetched as streamlining the logistics of fuel distribution can lower costs and ensure that price reductions at the ex-depot level reflect at the pumps.

In fact, the N20 reduction in petrol prices by Dangote Refinery, while commendable in principle, has been met with skepticism due to its minimal impact on the daily lives of Nigerians. As aptly captured by the disillusioned driver in Ikeja, “Wetin be N20 wey nor fit buy chewing gum?”,  the statement highlights the growing frustration of a populace yearning for meaningful economic relief.

For the reduction to resonate positively with Nigerians, it must be part of a larger, sustained effort to address the root causes of high fuel prices and their ripple effects on the economy. Only then can gestures like these move from symbolic to impactful, bringing genuine relief to millions of Nigerians struggling to make ends meet.

In a pivotal moment for Rivers State’s political landscape, Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s defiance against the Nigerian Police and their alleged interference in the state’s local government elections shines a spotlight on the deepening conflict between state sovereignty and judicial overreach. Fubara’s refusal to abide by the Federal High Court’s “fraudulent “judgment from justice peter Lifu, coupled with his dramatic confrontation with Inspector General of Police (IGP), Kayode Egbetokun, exposes the growing divide between state leadership and federal judicial decisions that seem to overstep constitutional boundaries. At the core of this battle stands the Otisi panel’s recent ruling, which nullified the Federal High Court’s decision, which sought to bar the Rivers State Electoral Commission (RSIEC) from holding elections. This ruling holds significant weight, not just for Rivers State but for Nigeria’s broader democratic processes.

Governor Fubara’s Critique of the IGP: “Fraudulent” and “Wicked”

Governor Fubara did not hold back in his critique of IGP Egbetokun, accusing him of fraudulent and wicked actions in relation to the October 5, 2024 local government elections. Fubara’s strong condemnation of the IGP underscores the frustration and betrayal felt by local leaders when judicial rulings appear to undermine their constitutional rights and democratic processes. “We don’t need your security,” Fubara boldly declared, refusing to accept police intervention in what he viewed as the state’s rightful election process. This was not just about election security—it was about asserting Rivers State’s autonomy.

The standoff between Fubara and police officers on October 4, 2024 in Port Harcourt was a turning point. Fubara’s personal intervention, when police attempted to disrupt the operations of the RSIEC, was an act of defiance that sent a strong message about Rivers State’s commitment to self-governance, especially in the face of judicial decisions that seemed more concerned with obstructing elections than protecting the right to vote.

The Otisi Panel’s Ruling: A Victory for State Sovereignty

At the heart of this judicial struggle is the Court of Appeal’s ruling, which nullified the decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja. Justice Onyekachi Otisi’s panel found that the Federal High Court had no jurisdiction over Rivers State’s local elections, especially in light of Section 28 of the Electoral Act, which only governs federal elections, governorship elections, and area council elections in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). This ruling is a monumental affirmation of state sovereignty and the separation of powers.

The panel’s decision is a landmark victory for Rivers State, confirming that the state has the right to manage its electoral process without interference from federal courts or law enforcement. By overturning Lifu’s “fraudulent judgement”, the Otisi-led panel reaffirmed that the RSIEC could proceed with the October 5 elections despite the federal court’s attempt to block them. This ruling marks a critical step in asserting the autonomy of state governments and local electoral commissions across Nigeria.

The Complex Web of Political Manipulation and Judicial Overreach

The dispute over Rivers State elections underscores a dangerous pattern of political manipulation and judicial overreach. Governor Fubara’s accusations against IGP Egbetokun reveal a growing concern about the compromise of federal institutions, particularly in Rivers State. The governor suggested that the IGP’s actions were part of a coordinated effort with former Governor Nyesom Wike to obstruct the October 5 elections.

This suspicion of political collusion between law enforcement and political figures has raised serious questions about the integrity of Nigeria’s judicial and law enforcement systems. Fubara’s allegations suggest that the Nigerian Police, under the leadership of IGP Egbetokun, may be playing a dangerous role in political interference, rather than fulfilling their constitutional duty to ensure the safety of the electoral process.

In light of this, the Otisi panel’s ruling serves as a refreshing reminder of the integrity of state authority. It emphasizes that state governments must not be held hostage by federal judicial overreach or political manipulation, particularly when such actions are designed to derail the democratic process.

Fubara’s Defiance: The Fight for Judicial Independence

Governor Fubara’s defiance of federal court rulings represents more than a political act; it is a stand for judicial independence. By insisting that the elections proceed, even in the face of legal opposition and police intervention, Fubara has placed himself at the forefront of the battle for Rivers State’s democracy. His declaration that “we don’t need your security” reveals the deep mistrust he has for federal institutions that he believes have been compromised by political interests.

Fubara’s actions—and the Otisi panel’s subsequent ruling—reflect a broader movement in Nigeria where states are challenging the growing overreach of federal judicial power. The question remains: will the Nigerian judiciary continue to be manipulated by political forces, or will it rise above these pressures and uphold the principles of fairness, independence, and autonomy?

A Call for Judicial Accountability and Apology

The ongoing saga between Governor Fubara, IGP Egbetokun, and the Federal High Court in Abuja under Justice Lifu is a glaring example of judicial abuse and political manipulation at its worst. The Otisi panel’s ruling cuts through the political smoke and mirrors, exposing the blatant flaws and overreach in Justice Lifu’s decision. This ruling wasn’t just legally flawed; it was a deliberate abuse of jurisdiction, one that undermined the constitutional rights of Rivers State and disrupted the democratic process with reckless disregard. The manipulation at play here has not only caused unnecessary turmoil in the state but has shown the depths to which some are willing to go to subvert justice for political gain. This is a scathing indictment of a judiciary that must be held accountable for its failures.

In light of this ruling, it is time for the Nigerian Police and Judiciary to own up to their errors and offer a public apology to Rivers State. Their actions in undermining the state’s electoral rights and interfering with the democratic process must be acknowledged, and the damage caused must be rectified.

As Governor Fubara asked, “What kind of a country is this?”—a country where state rights are trampled upon by a compromised judiciary and political manipulation. The Otisi panel’s ruling is a victory for justice, but it is also a call for greater accountability within Nigeria’s judicial system. It is time for the police and federal courts to acknowledge their role in undermining Rivers State’s sovereignty and to offer an open apology for their interference in the state’s electoral process.

A Path Forward: Restoring Integrity and Upholding Justice

The future of Rivers State’s democracy depends on the ability of the judiciary to rise above political pressures and act impartially. The Otisi panel’s ruling is just one step in the ongoing fight for state sovereignty and judicial independence. The people of Rivers State have shown their resolve in the face of injustice, and now the judiciary and law enforcement must step up to restore integrity to the system and apologize for the damage caused by their misguided actions.

The battle for justice in Rivers State is far from over, but it represents a critical moment in the fight for fairness, transparency, and democratic integrity across Nigeria. This recent ruling serves as a reminder that justice must be blind to political influence and that state governments have the right to govern their own elections without external interference. The people of Rivers State have spoken—now, it’s time for the judiciary and law enforcement to take responsibility and make things right.

As Nigeria awaits the outcome of Hamma Barka’s panel on the remaining Rivers State cases, the significance of Rivers State in the nation’s political and economic landscape cannot be overstated. Rivers, as a major oil-producing state, plays a central role in Nigeria’s economic stability, being one of the key contributors to the nation’s oil revenue. The stakes are extremely high, not just for Rivers State, but for the entire country. Any further interference with its governance, especially through fraudulent judicial rulings and political manipulation, risks destabilizing a critical pillar of Nigeria’s economy. Rivers State cannot be treated as a political battleground for power-hungry elites without facing dire consequences.

For this reason, those in positions of power must be extremely careful. No more fraudulent judgments must be allowed to take root, especially when they threaten the very foundations of democratic governance in Rivers State. President Tinubu, who is deeply involved in the political currents surrounding these events, must take heed and avoid being complicit in these dark and dangerous maneuvers. Aligning with figures like Nyesom Wike and engaging in schemes that undermine the state’s autonomy could lead to irreversible consequences. The people of Rivers are resilient, and if the forces of political manipulation continue to push them to the brink, there will be a reckoning—a fire that will be impossible to contain once ignited.

Rivers State’s fight for sovereignty is not just a local issue; it has national implications. The nation’s future depends on whether the rule of law and democracy can be preserved in Rivers, or if political figures, judicial overreach, and law enforcement corruption will continue to dictate its fate. Those in power must choose carefully—any attempt to undermine Rivers State and its people will not be without consequence. The fire will burn, and history will remember those who tried to extinguish it.

Furthermore, the leadership of the Nigerian Police, particularly IGP Egbetokun, must take a hard look at the nonsensical and counterproductive nature of their involvement in this situation. The actions of IGP Egbetokun have shown a disregard for professionalism and the law in the service of political expediency. The police leadership must learn from this stupidity and reassess their role in ensuring the security of the electoral process, rather than being pawns in the political games of the powerful. This is a moment for self-reflection and a clear recognition of the importance of acting in the best interests of the law and democracy, not serving political agendas. The consequences of failing to act with integrity will echo far beyond this moment—into the very future of Nigeria’s democracy.

As Great Britain, once a colonial power ruling over 56 nations now part of the Commonwealth, transitions into a more inclusive society, a symbolic form of “reverse colonization” seems to be unfolding. This phenomenon, exemplified by individuals from formerly colonized nations rising to leadership roles in the UK, highlights the open-mindedness of Britons. Their inclusive approach has afforded immigrants, including those born in the UK, equal opportunities alongside the native population.

The adventurous spirit of the British has also contributed to London’s evolution into a cosmopolitan hub. Home to people from various former colonies, London has become a melting pot of cultures and a global financial center rivaling cities like New York, Shanghai, and Hong Kong.

Historically, Britain’s dominance as a seafaring nation beginning after the founding of the country in 1707 enabled it to build an empire that spanned nearly a quarter of the globe. Through its control of vast territories in Africa, India, Australia, Canada, the United States, and the Caribbean, the British Empire left an indelible mark on the world. While the UK is no longer the imperial force it once was, it remains a vital player on the global stage.

Should Kemi Badenoch—of Nigerian heritage now the leader of the Tory party currently in opposition—one day become the UK’s Prime Minister, it would be a monumental achievement not just for Nigerians but for Africans and the global Black community. Her rise would echo that of Barack Obama, whose election as the first Black President of the United States inspired millions worldwide.

However, it’s unlikely that Nigerians had a direct hand in Badenoch’s political success. Her ascent in the UK’s political sphere did not hinge on support from Nigerian-majority constituencies. Therefore, Nigerians must allow her to continue climbing the political ladder without the negativity that sometimes characterizes reactions to such achievements as evidenced by the vilification from Nigerians she is currently contending with.

In my view, if Badenoch reaches the pinnacle of UK politics, she may remember her Nigerian roots. But even if she doesn’t, her success is still significant. It would serve as an inspiration for Nigerian-born Britons and the broader Black community in the UK and other countries in Europe and North America to pursue political leadership, marking a meaningful step forward for the Black race.

In the United States, Barack Obama deliberately distanced himself from Black identity politics during his presidential campaign, recognizing that such an approach might limit his appeal in a nation where Black Americans constitute just 13% of the population. In contrast, Hispanics account for approximately 14%, while Caucasians make up around 67%. The significant role of rural Caucasian voters in Donald Trump’s 2016 and 2024 victory—and their contribution to Keir Starmer’s Labour Party overtaking the Conservatives earlier this year, which Kemi Badenoch currently represents—underscores the importance of appealing to the broader majority in diverse democracies.

For candidates from minority backgrounds aspiring to lead multi-ethnic nations, emphasizing racial or ethnic identity can create barriers. Hence Badenoch, like others before her, has to navigate this challenge.

Historically, Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson both campaigned for the U.S. presidency by centering on Black identity, but neither achieved electoral success. Barack Obama learned from these missteps, avoiding identity politics and instead galvanizing young voters through social media, ultimately winning the presidency in 2008. Similarly, Kamala Harris, the current U.S. Vice President, distanced herself from minority-focused identity politics. That is why she did not openly emphasize her Black heritage during her campaign, but celebrated her marriage to Doug Emhoff, a Caucasian, to further broaden her appeal.

Kemi Badenoch appears to be following a comparable path in the UK. Her husband, Mr. Hamish Badenoch, is a successful Caucasian banker, a detail that could work in her favor when elections are called. As leader of the Conservative Party, this positioning may enhance her chances of becoming the UK’s next Prime Minister.

Meanwhile, the debate over reparations for the historical atrocities of slavery perpetrated against Africans continues to stir emotions. At the recent Commonwealth meeting in Apia, Samoa, African representatives renewed their call for reparations, but King Charles dismissed the demands, and Prime Minister Keir Starmer brushed them aside. This response frustrated African advocates and reignited debates about the relevance of the Commonwealth, especially if it primarily serves to promote the economic interests of the UK as the former colonial power, particularly the African continent as a market for her goods and services.

The UK’s resistance to reparations—unlike Germany, which compensated Israel for the Holocaust—is likely rooted in the immense financial strain such a commitment would impose, particularly given the UK’s current economic difficulties.

Nevertheless, Britons like Americans have demonstrated a commendable level of inclusivity and liberalism by granting citizens of foreign ancestry the same rights and opportunities to rise to the highest echelons of political power. This inclusive approach could, for now, be seen as a symbolic form of reparation for the UK’s inability to meet Africa’s demands for financial reparations.

In this context, Kemi Badenoch’s rise to prominence—an African woman occupying one of the most significant positions in British politics—offers a powerful symbolic acknowledgment of historical injustices and readiness of the former colonizer to atone for past atrocities such as slavery and the pillaging of the economic resources of the continent. Her potential candidacy for Prime Minister would reaffirm this gesture of non-financial reparation, serving as a tribute to the historical exploitation of Africa, particularly the West African region.

That said, I do not support those in Nigeria who have criticized Badenoch for her disparaging remarks about the country during her bid for Conservative Party leadership. As Otto von Bismarck once said: “Politics is the art of the possible.” This pragmatic view mirrors the boldness that led Bismarck to organize the infamous Berlin Conference of 1884/85, where Africa was partitioned among European powers whose vestiges have been sustained and a reason the continent remains underdeveloped.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, the 32nd President of the United States, is famously associated with the statement: “In politics, nothing happens by accident.” This highlights that political events and decisions are rarely spontaneous but are typically the result of meticulous planning, strategy, and deliberate manipulation.

Kemi Badenoch’s ambition to become the next Prime Minister of the UK is legitimate, and her approach reflects this aspiration. By aligning herself with the expectations of the British electorate, she has positioned herself as a candidate who embodies British political ideals. However, her portrayal of Nigeria, which has drawn criticism from Nigerians, likely serves to reassure skeptical voters in the UK of her commitment to those ideals, which differ markedly from the political climate in her ancestral home.

Critics who find her comments about Nigeria disparaging may view them as unnecessary, but Napoleon Bonaparte’s assertion that “In politics, absurdity is not a handicap” offers a counterpoint. This underscores the reality that political maneuvering often includes statements or actions perceived as controversial or unconventional.

The ruthless ambition often associated with political pursuits is exemplified by Nicolae Ceaușescu, the former communist leader of Romania, who reportedly declared: “I will sell my mother to buy power. After getting power, I will buy my mother back.” While the literal feasibility of such a claim is questionable, it reflects the unrelenting drive and willingness to sacrifice personal relationships for political gain. Similarly, Ghanaian politician Freddie Blay echoed this sentiment, stating: “I love politics, and I would spend money to win power. If you are not careful, I will even be ready to sell my mother for money to retain my position.”

This stark perspective highlights an inconvenient truth: such a mindset underpins the actions of many politicians globally, particularly in authoritarian systems. Politics, after all, is a game of power and influence, often involving the orchestration of events to achieve specific objectives. While this doesn’t always imply malicious intent, it does illustrate the calculated nature of political strategy. As Groucho Marx wittily observed: “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.”

From a historical standpoint, Badenoch’s current political strategy in the UK parallels that of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), whose rise to the U.S. presidency (1933–1945) was shaped by significant challenges, including the Great Depression and World War II. FDR’s leadership was marked by calculated and strategic decisions, much like Badenoch’s tactical rise to the top of the Tory party as she positioned herself for a shot at the premiership.

As the saying goes: “There is no smoke without fire.”

Badenoch’s seemingly critical stance on Nigeria may be driven by the significant obstacles she faces in her political journey. These include her non-Caucasian identity, which may lead some to question whether her African heritage aligns with British identity. This skepticism is compounded by concerns that her Nigerian background might influence her leadership style if she were to become Prime Minister. Overcoming these challenges requires Badenoch to carefully navigate perceptions and prove her commitment to the ideals and values expected by the British electorate.

Given the unconscious bias that her non-Caucasian background might invite, Kemi Badenoch appears to have strategically distanced herself from Nigeria. This move is likely aimed at improving her chances of securing the top political position in the UK—Prime Minister and resident of 10 Downing Street. To achieve this, she has deliberately redefined herself as a quintessential Briton, fully embodying British political ideals and values.

Therefore, Badenoch’s public criticism of Nigeria’s poor political standards plays into this strategy, enhancing her appeal to the UK electorate who need to be assured that her values as a politician are higher than the typical Nigerian standard. These voters, to whom she must demonstrate her allegiance, are the ones whose support she needs to succeed in her political ambitions, not the Nigerians who have no voting rights in the UK that are unbraiding her because she is not pandering to them.

Given the above reality, it is essential to view Badenoch’s actions through the lens of political survival. She faces significant challenges as she navigates her role as the first Black woman to lead a major political party in the UK, and her situation can be compared to popular cultural phenomena. For instance, her political journey resembles contestants on the Big Brother House reality television show, where individuals use charm, wit, and strategy to outlast competitors and win over audiences to clinch the coveted prize. Similarly, it mirrors the power struggles and scheming seen in Game of Thrones another reality television show, where characters fight for survival and dominance in a high-stakes, ruthless environment.

Understanding the immense pressures Badenoch faces should prompt Nigerians to support her rather than criticize her, hence this intervention aimed at sharing another Point of View, PoV on the matter. Unfortunately, many Nigerians, despite sharing a common ancestry with her, have been quick to attack her leadership style and political stance. Hopefully, this article will help to explain the rationale behind her political posture, which has drawn ire from Nigerians who perceive it as disloyal or unflattering. By recognizing the challenges Badenoch confronts, critics may better understand her choices and judge her more fairly.

In stark contrast to the criticism Badenoch has received for not openly embracing her Nigerian heritage, Rishi Sunak, the former UK Prime Minister of Indian descent, enjoyed overwhelming support from both the Indian diaspora in the UK and Indians back home.

Based on my research, the following factors may help explain why Nigerians have reacted more critically to Badenoch’s candidacy compared to the widespread celebration of Sunak’s rise to power:

1. Distinct diaspora dynamics:
The Indian diaspora in the UK is larger, more established, and maintains stronger cultural and economic ties to India. On the other hand, while the Nigerian community in the UK is growing, it lacks the same level of organization and connection to Nigeria.
2. Nigerian political challenges and skepticism:
Nigeria’s history of political instability and corruption has created a sense of skepticism among its citizens. Consequently, many Nigerians may hesitate to celebrate a politician, especially one who has achieved success within a foreign political system.
3. Limited connection or representation:
Unlike Rishi Sunak, who openly embraces and celebrates his Indian heritage, Kemi Badenoch has not prominently highlighted her Nigerian roots but discountenanced them. Her apparent reluctance, possibly influenced by the challenges facing Nigeria, may contribute to the lack of enthusiasm among Nigerians.
4. Divergent expectations from diaspora figures:
Nigerians tend to focus on the tangible contributions their diaspora representatives make toward Nigeria’s development, rather than celebrating individual achievements abroad. This difference in priorities may explain the muted reception to Badenoch’s political ambitions.
5. Media portrayal and controversy:
The role of social and traditional media cannot be ignored. Badenoch’s controversial remarks about Nigeria have sparked significant backlash, with media platforms amplifying these sentiments and shaping public opinion.

In conclusion,
Rishi Sunak and Kemi Badenoch (if she becomes Prime Minister) will not be the first politicians from minority backgrounds to lead the UK. Several British Prime Ministers have had diverse ancestries:
William Pitt the Younger: Born in England, he became Prime Minister at the age of 24 and had Irish ancestry through his father, a British politician.
Benjamin Disraeli: An English-born Prime Minister whose father was an Italian immigrant.
Harold Wilson: Also born in England, Wilson’s father, a chemist, had Scottish roots.

Kemi Badenoch, an African of Nigerian heritage, could similarly rise to lead the UK, following the precedent set by these figures.

Some critics might attempt to frame her success as “reverse colonialism.” However, she will not be the first minority from a former colony to rule the UK because India, like Nigeria, was colonized by Britain, and Rishi Sunak served as UK Prime Minister for two years (2022–2024) without significantly favoring Indians or enriching India as a country. This demonstrates that such fears are baseless.

As Badenoch appears to have a strong chance of becoming the next UK Prime Minister, Nigerians should refrain from actions or criticisms that could undermine her ambitions.

To Kemi Badenoch, my advice is simple: remain composed (translated in Yoruba as -farabale). Although you are British, your umbilical cord is still tied to Nigeria, and you will need the blessings of Nigerians as you ascend to the highest office in your current country of citizenship.
I join others in wishing her as well as other politicians of Nigerian heritage climbing up the ladder of the political ecosystems in their respective countries of citizenship, the best of luck as they chase the dream of becoming prime minister/president.

Magnus Onyibe
Entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.