Opinion
Archbishop Ayo Ladigbolu: A Unique Yorùbá Intellectual, Cultural Icon And Elder Statesman
Published
4 months agoon
By Tunji Olaopa
The Yorùbá culture has always been blessed with the attention of intellectuals, scholars and academics who considered it a worthwhile subject of discourse. Without any doubt, the Yorùbá culture is one of the most studied cultural forms of life in the world. This is apart from the many scholars, cultural enthusiasts and intellectuals that the culture itself has produced, from Samuel Ajayi Crowder to Samuel Johnson, from Akinwunmi Isola to J. A. Atanda to Saburi Biobaku, and from Wole Soyinka to Wande Abimbola, Oyekan Owomoyela to Toyin Falola.
But we must also not forget the cultural and indigenous intellectuals, like D. O. Fagunwa, Archbishop Ayo Ladigbolu and Adebayo Faleti, to name just a few, whose very being and profession are invested in the culture itself. All these intellectuals are those who have laid the foundation for entrenching the influence and the national and global reach of the culture, as well as its hold on our collective imagination.
Archbishop Ayo Ladigbolu
In this piece, I am glad to dedicate this critical analysis to Baba Archbishop Ayo Ladigbolu who has been a cultural icon for me since way back. I have written so much about my wondering and wandering sensibility as a young boy growing up and reflecting about my context and surrounding. Yoruba culture and history have always held a deep source of curiosity for me, and Pa Ladigbolu is a phenomenal figure who constitutes a triadic embodiment of the theological, the cultural and the political, and one at that who influenced my scholarship indescribably. That places Baba within the crosshair of my search for cultural and theological enlightenment, especially about the Yorùbá culture’s engagement with non-Yorùbá influences.
Indeed, in many of my intense political conversations with HE Chief Olusegun Obasanjo around Nigerian politics and the place of the southwest within it, he had always been insistent that I must not miss the opportunity to sit at the feet of the Master, Archbishop Ladigbolu, since I have chosen to follow in the footstep of my grandfather and the celebrated historian of culture, Rev. David Aibinu Olaopa, of blessed memory. This was an added impetus since I had already taken him as a father and a mentor.
Baba Ladigbolu is phenomenal. He occupies the same circle of cultural preservationists that include Tunde Kelani the filmmaker and the Afenifere, the pan-Yorùbá cultural and political forum. However, Baba’s historical trajectory is one with a significant difference. And this is because he is a minister of God who is deeply ingrained in both his cultural environment as well as in Christianity. His career therefore enables a deep insight into the understanding of the conflicted relationship between culture and modernity, and how one could begin to unravel the significance of modernity within a culture’s own development. Indeed, the cultural and professional trajectories of Baba Ladigbolu provides us with a fundamental framework for how an ecumenical framework could be generated between an indigenous culture and a foreign religion. Pa Ladigbolu achieved that almost seamless coherence that allowed him to become a priest of the Methodist Church of Nigeria (and to rise up to the zenith of its hierarchy as an archbishop) while retaining a very deep cultural mooring in the Yorùbá heritage.
We immediately see the significance of this fusion in an age when Pentecostal Christianity built its own incursion into a different culture on the basis of the demonization of those cultures as heathenism. Archbishop Ladigbolu deployed his contact with western education as the fulcrum for developing an open-minded cultural sensibility that allows for the mutual reinforcement between Christianity and the Yorùbá culture in terms of the emergence of a modern sensibility that enables a conversation between the two. When I think of Pa Ladigbolu, I see an older and more perfect reflection of how Ali Mazrui’s Africa’s triple heritage thesis could become an embodied lifestyle and philosophy. I have written so much about how my upbringing enabled me to see how the three dynamics—Christianity, traditional Yoruba religion and Islam—could relate in a non-violent manner. Baba Ladigbolu was raised as a Muslim within a deeply culturally conscious Yoruba context and he converted to Christianity while still advocating the preservation of the Yorùbá culture.
Being born within a household that traces its lineage to Alaafin Siyanbola Ladigbolu I, and growing up within an authentic palace comes with its own unique educational value in the paraphernalia of the Yoruba culture. One of the deepest implications was that even before encountering western education through his many travels and the experience they yielded, he had already assimilated an enlarged mind that accepted the theological ramifications of Islam, Yoruba theology and Christianity. His worldview was already wide enough and empathetic to accommodate his myriad experiences traveling from one place to another. We can speculate that his enlarged sensibility owes a lot to the open-minded accommodationist framework that the Yorùbá culture itself makes possible. The Yorùbá culture was able to accommodate the incursion of Islam and Christianity because it lacks the exclusionary ontology of both.
I prefer to see Archbishop Ladigbolu as an exemplar of Antonio Gramsci’s understanding of who an intellectual is. Gramsci bifurcated between the “traditional” and the “organic” intellectuals. The traditional intellectuals—teachers, scientists, priests, artists—contrary to their claims to be the bearers of universal values, are actually those that emerged from within a privileged or even a dominant social class, and who are compelled by the dynamics of that class to reinforce its values and philosophies. The organic intellectuals, on the other hand, are more organically connected to the masses because they grew and emerged from within non-privileged strata, transformed their status through education especially, and imposed on themselves the obligation to raise the fortune of that strata. Intellectuals, Gramsci argues, are recognized by their need for the critical elaboration of a new understanding of the world. This is what determines the functions of the intellectuals in any society.
Indeed, I want to make a radical assertion that Pa Ladigbolu possesses the status of both a traditional and an organic intellectual. When he became a Christian and the entire household became convulsed with fear and tears, they had no way of understanding the contradiction in their worries. They were Yorùbá who embraced Islam. And so there should not have been any worries about one of them embracing Christianity. And if their worry had been about his possible loss of cultural knowledge, little did they know that he would become a cultural champion that he is today.
A much more fundamental challenge embedded in Pa Ladigbolu’s stature is the tension between absolutist theological ontology of Christianity and the accommodationist and liberal worldview of the Yorùbá. How was the archbishop of the Methodist Church in Nigeria able to balance the claim that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life with Christianity’s paganization of non-Christian cultures? How is Christianity’s proselytizing dynamics squared with the non-proselytizing nature of Yorùbá traditional religion? One way to respond to this is to argue that Pa Ladigbolu’s cultural enthusiasm had to take a back seat while he was the Archbishop of the Methodist Church. And this cultural advocacy had picked up immediately he retired as the archbishop. Even if this explanation is far-fetched given his fearless determination to be Yorùbá at all cost, no one—not even the Church—could deny that Archbishop Ayo Ladigbolu was a staunch Yorùbá who deeply loves God.
Combining two near-incompatible theological views, in my assessment, becomes a courageous plus for Pa Ladigbolu, an insight into the capacity of the Yorùbá culture to keep inventing itself in the face of challenges. The Yorùbá understanding of àṣà demonstrates a flexible adaptability that has allowed the Yorùbá to not only domesticate non-Yorùbá influences, but to also fit into any cultural and theological contexts wherever they found themselves. This is what had made possible, for instance, the Candomblé and Santeria religious experiences from Brazil to Cuba and beyond. These religious forms emerged from the syncretic fusion of the Yorùbá òrìṣà tradition with Roman Catholicism. What is even more significant is that Candomblé, for example, lacks the same institutionalized framework determined by an orthodoxy and a sacred text. Its heterogeneous form allows for significant incorporation in the same way that Ifá incorporates non-Yorùbá events.
This is the same way that Baba Ladigbolu could be understood as a modernizer of the Yorùbá culture and tradition. Being the leader of the Yorùbá Unity Forum (YUF) as well as the chairman of the Oyo Metropolitan Development provides the opportunity to do two major things. First, it allows him to pursue a program of creative urbanism, what the Yorùbá themselves are historically famous for—transforming Yorùbá cities in line with modern exigencies. And second, Baba’s advocacy also brings to the fore the roles of traditional structures and institutions in the development of modern existence.
For Baba, even as the best of modern scholars have realized, culture matters. It must be the platform around which our being-in-the-world is measured and extended to others. The full extent of his multicultural experiences has allowed him to both serve the Almighty while pushing the bounds of theological and cultural similarities and differences. And so, in straddling Gramsci’s distinction between the traditional and the organic intellectual, Archbishop Ayo Ladigbolu becomes an exemplar for other intellectuals—a sum of cultural knowledge that broadens our cultural worldviews.
Olaopa is a Professor of Public Administration and the Chairman,Federal Civil Service Commission, Abuja.
By Felix Oboagwina
Comrade, Congratulations ooo!
What’s up, Man? Why are you congratulating me? It’s not my birthday till September.
You should also tell me congratulations nevertheless!
I really need good news. What happened? Why are we exchanging congratulations?
Petrol price has dropped from four digits to three digits. Shame on doubting Thomases like you! Petrol is no longer N1,200; it is now N925.
Continue to be self-delusional! News flash: All petrol stations in this our neighbourhood are still displaying N1,045 per litre.
They will adjust their meters downwards, latest, tomorrow morning. Hooray!
Hooray kill you there! You know what is worrying you and most Nigerians?
Tell us o, Mister Doubting Thomas. What is “wronging” with us?
Stockholm Syndrome! You have been raped for so long that you have fallen in love with your rapist.
Asusu beke! Oyinbo! Mister Grammarian: Which one is Stockholm Syndrome? Let me Google it. Here it is: Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological theory that explains why hostages or victims may develop positive feelings towards their captors or abusers. This can lead to the victim defending or identifying with the captor, and may also include negative feelings towards authorities attempting to rescue them. The term originated from a 1973 bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden, where hostages developed an emotional bond with their captors instead of being hostile.
You Nigerians will celebrate a little gain from your oppressors when you have lost so, so much. Before your hero took over power on May 29, 2023, the price of petrol was N195. Then, someone opened his big mouth, waaaah, and said: SUBSIDY IS GONEYou! No strategy! No modus operandi! No incentive! No structure! Nothing! Before you could say JACK ROBINSON, predictably, the price reacted and fuel skyrocketed to N550 per litre. Today they sell for N1,045 minimum! Then these same Shylocks shave off less than N100 from that bogus price and you wave your tails like starving dogs handed a meatless bone.
What is wrong with celebrating what you call “little gains?”
By Toyin Falola
The reelection of Donald Trump and his return to the White House on January 20, 2025, have spurred debates regarding the consequences this new chapter in the leadership of the United States could have for the state of international relations. Although many analysts are focused on how this change in power would affect trade, security, and environmental policies in the United States, there is also a parallel discussion on the effects on developing continents like Africa. Not surprisingly, officials, academics, and global strategists from many African nations are beginning to examine how a Trump-led new government might either reinterpret long-standing ties, challenge diplomatic norms, or bring fresh accords that redefine present inter-relations.
Trump’s first term, marked by a foreign policy favoring bilateral treaties over multilateral ones, has already caused cautious expectations among African leaders to be aroused. For decades, many African nations have been fostering a range of security and economic ties to the United States, with many of these alliances undergoing recalibrations that did not always benefit the continent. Trump’s one-sided view of trade, framed by the “America First” notion, deviates from his predecessors’ traditional approach.
African governments have aggressively sought various foreign partners over the past decade to increase the range of commercial and financial investment portfolios. China, Russia, Turkey, and the European Union are among the significant forces leaving their traces over the continent. This broad spectrum of interests has contributed to a crowded field where African states engage in diplomatic balancing acts—sometimes using rivalry among international powers to secure favorable agreements. Following Donald Trump’s victory, there has been a lot of speculation on how the US government would either choose to intensify its rivalry with China in African nations or pursue selective cooperation to help offset Beijing’s influence.
The uniquely personal approach of the Trump administration, where public comments might overnight alter the tone of a relationship, accentuated this sense of unease. Africans who follow US politics recall remarks referring to various countries on the continent in less than favorable terms that sparked general indignation and questions about whether such rhetoric foretold a more general policy move away from previously friendly connections. Critics claimed it was ready to give more obvious headline issues elsewhere top priority over African challenges. Some African officials responded by deciding to increase their interactions with other partners. China invests significantly in African infrastructure and resource extraction and has been the most apparent gainer of this recalibration. Russia also became more visible, particularly in arms purchases and security training; Turkey and the Gulf countries expanded their commercial presence in specific areas. Analysts hope for consistency in that inclination for one-on-one deals over broad multilateral commitments as the Trump White House prepares to retake the front stage.
Initially low on Trump’s agenda, the African Growth and Opportunity Act—which provides duty-free access for a range of goods—is under increasing debate among experts about whether it might be subjected to fresh scrutiny or even a significant overhaul forcing African nations to renegotiate on more reciprocal terms. Few would dispute that such conversations might be intimidating for smaller nations lacking the same negotiating power as more developed governments.
Simultaneously, nations with more substantial industrial and resource bases could use this climate to draw attention and investment, hoping to find deals granting them privileged access to American markets. These debates generally center on how Washington may compromise between lowering its overseas obligations and meeting its desire to compete with China.
Although Sino-American competition is now a theater for Africa, Trump’s approach thus far has been to attack Beijing more directly rather than devoting significant funds to match Chinese investments in freeways, train lines, or industrial parks throughout the continent. Under Trump, Washington would choose focused projects that support specific American economic or security goals instead of massive infrastructure schemes, maybe emphasizing strategic minerals, oil reserves, or technologically driven sectors. African countries that find those industries needing finance, knowledge, or technology support can profit from this strategy. Still, whether the second Trump government will seek to create more appealing frameworks for African growth or try to limit Chinese entry is unclear.
The field of security cooperation generates particularly strong conjecture. While openly expressing an intention to lower the total military presence worldwide, the Pentagon did retain or even increase some operations against terrorist organizations like al-Shabaab in Somalia during Trump’s previous term.Increased drone strikes and special operations in various conflict areas sparked discussions on whether such tactics enhanced long-term stability or only served to limit threats for a given period. Though experts advise a closer mix of economic and humanitarian aid to solve the underlying causes of extremism, observers predict that the trend will continue. Some African leaders worry that a laser focus on military action could eclipse important initiatives aiming at social services, government reforms, and young employment.
In the middle of this global emphasis, several analysts advise African countries to create a collective strategy that clearly and succinctly outlines their objectives for the next four years and sets their priorities. Depending on the situation, this could mean improving already-existing treaties or rewriting them under fresh conditions needing more African negotiator involvement. Establishing closer cooperation with colleagues from non-Western nations could also help guard against the volatility emanating from Washington. Should the second term of President Trump go in unexpected directions or impose policies on trade and aid that African governments find objectionable, this kind of preparedness could help offer a margin of stability.
Critics warn that depending too much on ad hoc solutions would expose African governments to abrupt policy changes or budgetary constraints.
Besides, many African analysts believe that a Trump-led White House might inspire Africa to engage in more coordinated initiatives on issues including continental free trade, intra-African tourism, and industrial policy cooperation. These people believe that if African countries see a decline in funding or an unclear commitment from the United States government, it might encourage a stronger push towards self-sufficiency and a stronger integration of the continent. Though the African Union has been pushing for such objectives for a reasonable time, there have been cases when real growth lags behind the rhetoric. Competing national interests, a restricted budget, and ongoing conflicts between neighboring nations have all contributed to this. Still, some believe that a resurrected Trump government—known for its unpredictable behavior and limited approach to involvement—would ironically give African leaders the shock they need to express themselves more firmly in their quest for unification. They argue that a more unified Africa would give the continent a stronger voice in international debates and shield it from the outside shocks that could arise whenever a dominant partner changes its course of action or withdraws some advantages.
Those focusing on economic alliances believe Africa is at a crossroads. Rapid urbanization, a rising young population, and untapped innovation ecosystems throughout the continent present rich ground for investment in various industries, from technology enterprises to agribusiness. American-based companies have occasionally shown a will to seize these possibilities, especially in countries that have invested in dependable broadband infrastructure and offer legal frameworks supporting global collaboration.
The Trump administration’s attitude toward lowering foreign aid and emphasizing financial returns over broad-based development may cause investors to prioritize profitable sectors like mining or oil over essential investments in education or healthcare. Critics of such a selective approach worry that it could lead to temporary economic bubbles, mainly benefiting a tiny number of elites while leaving normal people behind. Some critics warn about this danger here. Conversely, many people think that Trump’s inclination for haggling over large sums of money could inspire him to search for high-impact initiatives with quick access to clear benefits.
Under the former government, President Trump sought symbolic achievements he could support as proof of effective negotiations on a sporadic basis. If there is an apparent political or financial gain, this approach could match Africa’s significant resources and the appeal of modernizing initiatives. Conversely, people worry that with local businesses playing a secondary role, these agreements might be significantly biased to benefit American companies. Under this situation, many experts are reminded of a time when African countries had to adopt development targets determined by donors and often made significant concessions in return for projects involving industry or infrastructure. There is hope that as African nations keep growing and enhancing their strategic planning, they will become more aggressive and search for alliances with generally positive effects. Utilizing the development of jobs, the dissemination of technology, or the application of local content requirements guaranteeing genuine involvement from African firms, they could try to acquire community buy-in.
Beyond these more general policy issues, the African diaspora in the United States has become a powerful economic and cultural link influencing African impressions of American political events. Diaspora groups engage in local businesses, send billions of dollars in remittances to their own countries, and frequently travel back and forth to foster economic relations and entrepreneurial activity. Should Trump’s immigration posture tighten, African professionals or students may find it more difficult to sustain these flows, and that disturbance might reverberate throughout fields like healthcare to education. However, if history is anything to go by, the diaspora has shown resiliency despite tight visa policies and has found other paths to stay actively involved with hometowns. Whether the incoming government will recognize the increasing impact of the diaspora or carry on measures some believe to be obstacles to complete integration is yet unknown.
In popular culture, Africa’s deep ties with the United States have created a vibrant exchange of music, film, and digital content. Afro-beat has found devoted fans worldwide, including in American cities. Hollywood, for its part, has begun paying more attention to African audiences and themes. This cultural interplay does not halt when a new president takes office, though it can shift. Creative collaboration may slow if visa restrictions tighten or specific cultural exchange programs lose official support. Yet social media platforms have proven immensely effective in bridging gaps, allowing African creators to reach American fans without extensive institutional backing. As a result, cultural links often flourish despite political differences, and everyday people continue to forge relationships that bypass formal channels.
Those who see international diplomacy from a more expansive perspective believe the competitive conflict between the US and China will always influence African leaders’ stance. Already transforming skylines, port cities, and industrial zones are ambitious infrastructure projects Beijing supports. Should the American administration deepen or hasten its geopolitical challenge to China, it might give African cities a chance to negotiate better terms. Some viewers who see a future in which Africa can use big power rivalry to guarantee infrastructure improvements, technological transfers, and increased trade channels find that prospect exciting. Others warn that depending too much on one side of a geopolitical conflict could backfire should world powers change their approach or achieve compromise among themselves, therefore marginalizing lesser participants.
In countries grappling with internal conflicts, there is an immediate question of whether American involvement will remain consistent. Some regions rely on steady injections of US humanitarian aid, delivered through partnerships with international organizations, to keep people fed and to support medical facilities in war-torn zones. Should the new Trump administration decide to reduce these humanitarian allocations, local communities may face devastating resource gaps.Non-governmental organizations would need to seek alternative funders or cut programs entirely, leaving displaced populations even more vulnerable. Although a few commentators expect that core humanitarian efforts will persist, especially in crises that capture global headlines, they acknowledge that budgets can be reallocated in unpredictable ways.
At the same time, confident African entrepreneurs and innovators have expressed hope that the United States might favor building private-sector bonds over traditional development assistance. They argue that a business-driven model, though competitive, could promote self-sufficiency and job creation. If American investors look to Africa’s technology hubs for robust returns, this might spur the growth of local ecosystems in fields such as financial technology, e-commerce, and agricultural innovations. Cities like Cape Town and Kigali have drawn international attention for their blooming startup scenes. A second Trump presidency that prizes deal-making might well funnel resources into such areas, especially if they align with emerging US economic interests. Much will depend on whether policymakers in Washington sense an opportunity to nurture the private sector in Africa as an engine of mutual prosperity or whether they decide to clamp down on areas they perceive as less essential.
The most critical concern for ordinary people monitoring daily policy changes is ensuring that agreements developed between Washington and African capitals do not compromise local voices. In areas of the continent that are still experiencing epidemics or underfunded educational institutions, civil society organizations expect uphill challenges over sustaining financing for health and education activities. Humanitarian supporters fear what will happen to refugee populations should the government tighten its international assistance policy. Concurrent with this is a clear will among grassroots activists and non-governmental groups to create more resilient paths by looking for alternative funders or advocating for African governments to protect essential services independent of foreign budgetary decisions.
Inspired by local accomplishments and an administration in Washington that responds to apparent successes, several observers anticipate that new patterns of cooperation may develop during these next few years. The American government will consider whether African entrepreneurs create vibrant technology clusters or regional economic blocs to show that their markets can manage more manufacturing. That will enable Africa to be regarded as a real partner for substantial, mutually beneficial economic projects instead of seeing just through the prism of charity or security support. Though past efforts at such a rebranding have encountered challenges, the convergence of Africa’s dynamic demography, digital development, and global awareness of its potential could generate the impetus needed even though this potential is tempered by the understanding that Trump’s policies might also hinder progress if they result in sudden limits on travel, if they remove essential money for development efforts, or if they reinforce unfavorable perceptions about the continent. Primarily, if harsh language is used once more in the discourse, this worst-case scenario could create an atmosphere of mistrust between the African public and the United States of America. The continent is keeping a close eye on the situation and is currently engaged in heated conversations over what the next four years will bring and the best way to react. Student organizations think tanks, corporate forums, and media outlets continue to get together to discuss, evaluate, and share new points of view on how to turn uncertainty into opportunity.
There is no definitive answer to the question of how to proceed. Africa is not a stage where larger nations merely act out their geopolitical moves; Africa has a lot of activity. There is a patchwork of countries that are resolute in pursuing a fairer share of global prosperity, and the future chapter in the presidency of the United States of America has the potential to either advance or hinder their aspirations. Even though African leaders and populations have developed since then and are now more equipped to deal with the unexpected, Trump’s second term will likely be almost identical to his first term regarding unforeseen twists and big announcements. If they successfully present their arguments within the halls of power and maintain their unwavering dedication to the community’s priorities, they may discover that even a turbulent administration can provide expansion opportunities. This option’s success is contingent on African states’ capacity to successfully coordinate their efforts, preserve social and political stability within their borders, and keep a watchful eye on the long game of ensuring sustained developmental growth.
As the dust settles on the presidential transition in the United States and attention switches to policy announcements from the White House, the ultimate decision regarding Trump’s reelection for Africa will be determined by what comes to fruition. It will interest observers to assess whether trade dialogues increase, whether or not security cooperation results in long-term peace rather than short bursts of activity, and whether or not cultural and educational linkages continue to exist despite any changes in regulatory policies.
When all is said and done, it will take some time to determine how the reinvigorated leadership of the United States under President Trump affects Africa’s march toward greater integration, stronger economies, and more resilient societies. On the other hand, Africa’s trajectory increasingly reflects its vitality and goals, and Washington’s role is simply one piece of the complex puzzle that is Africa’s overall trajectory. Because of this sense of agency, many people continue to have hope. Visionaries resolute in their pursuit to redefine their continent’s position in the international arena are the driving force behind Africa’s success, even in the face of global power maneuvers, local setbacks, or uncertain signals from a new administration. Africa is ready to be not just a beneficiary of decisions about foreign policy but also an influential player influencing worldwide trends. Their voices will shape the discourse as these next four years unfold, reminding the world that Africa is poised to be both receiving and shaping international trends.
Any individual who is committed to a global system that is more just and balanced will find this aim to be resonant. The countries that make up the continent should closely monitor the situation, express their opinions, and adjust as required. By acting in this manner, they are reinforcing the fact that the future of Africa is no longer solely dependent on the desires of a foreign superpower, and the stage is set for a new phase in which Africa and the United States will recalibrate their connections within a bigger and more complex global context. Although nothing can be assured, there is ample room for optimism.
Please join us for a panel discussion with our distinguished panelists, Professors Christopher Isike, Kingsley Makhubela, Ayisah Osori, and Carl LeVan, who will be sharing their expertise on “President Trump and Africa”:
Sunday, January 26, 2025
10 AM Austin // 5 PM Nigeria // 6 PM South Africa
. Falola is Extraordinary Professor of Political Science, University of Pretoria.
By Hope O’Rukevbe Eghagha
Banji: A speaker speaks no more!
Rita: How poetic! How dramatic!
Uyi: How decisive! Now there will be peace in the world!
Rita: Excuse me. Now you are being sarcastic!
Uyi: In a world of absurdities, it is sarcasm that keeps one sane!
Rita: It has been poetic to me, anyway. That’s my opinion.
Banji: What is poetic? The language or the experience?
Rita: Both, I believe. Lessons in hubris. The power of power, the failure of power. The wheel came full circle for a man consumed by innate arrogance.
Banji: One of the lessons of power. A recurring one.
Rita: But man never seems to learn. He has always been a victim of pride and will continue to be forever and ever.
Uyi: But you have both joined the bandwagon and pronounced the man guilty without giving him fair hearing. Why was he impeached while he was away to the United States?
Banji: Hahahaha! To reduce bloodshed, perhaps, you know! To prevent counter forces from laying an ambush.
Rita: Does it matter really?
Banji: But speaking seriously, why didn’t Strongman Mudasiru Obasa get wind of his impending fall and rally his troops?
Rita: He was strong only when the forces of power allowed him to be. This, he didn’t realize. Now, he can’t disburse any largesse. His visitors will be very few now.
Rita: Besides, did he have troops? I think he had offended too many people in the long ten years in power, from June 2015 to January 2025. He is alleged to have routinely disrespected the governor.
Uyi: He must have been a fool if he did that. State-appointed or elected officials must know the difference between the man and the office. The occupant is a tenant, but the seat is forever. A Speaker who disrespects the Governor disrespects the people, disrespects the entire Executive branch of government.
Okoro: Then why did he last for so long in that position?
Banji: Very many reasons. He was simply indulged by the powerful persons in government. The report is that when he offended the inner caucus of the governance in the state, he had to go. It is said that on the cabinet list last presented by the governor, he pushed, shoved, blocked, and shook up the list until they made concessions. He even initially rejected a candidate who was backed by Abuja.
Uyi: In my view, if a man is accused of an offence, he must be given the opportunity to defend himself according to the articles of impeachment.
Banji: Impeachment is essentially a political process; not a legal one. That is to say, once the establishment declares you unfit, they will cook, manufacture, import, and concoct reasons to get you out. Fair hearing is not part of the bargain!
Rita: Let us consider all the impeachments in our nation’s history, starting from Alhaji Balarabe Musa’s experience in 1981 in the Second Republic. Balarabe Musa was in an impossible position because the House of Assembly was NPN-dominated while he was in PRP. They could not agree on a list of Commissioners. To throw him out, he was accused of corruption though that man was above board. Ayo Fayose in 2006, Peter Obi in 2006, Joshua Dariye in 2006, Oyo State governor Rashidi Ladoja in 2006, Bayelsa State Diepreye Alamieyeseigha in 2005, and Murtala Nyako of Adamawa state 2014 were all victims of impeachment.
Okoro: Since 1999, about sixteen deputy governors have been impeached in Nigeria also. From Lagos state we have Femi Pedro and Kofoworola, Iyiola Omisore (Osun) Chris Ekpenyong (Akwa Ibom), Abiodun Aluko and Biodun Olujimi (Ekiti) Garba Gadi (Bauchi). Phillip Shaibu was the 17th deputy governor to be impeached in Nigeria once he fell out with the incumbent governor.
Rita: Lagos is now on the list of twenty states where speakers have been impeached since 1999. Victor Idoro in Edo State was removed in 2016 by 16 of 24 members. He had been accused of highhandedness. Significantly he was replaced by a female speaker. Frank Okiye of Edo state in 2020), Rita Madunagu of Anambra in 2018, Adamu Musa of Niger State in 2015, and Goni Ali Modu of Borno state in 2012. In 2021, Abok Ayuba was impeached by 16 out of 24 legislators in Plateau state, Abubakar Ibrahim of Gombe state in 2020. In Delta state, Victor Ochei was removed in 2014 while Monday Igbuya faced the music in 2017. A couple of others were impeached from office. So, it’s not new.
Uyi: You have become an expert in the history of impeachments!
Rita: Hahahahaha! I’m a journalist, so, I should know.
Okoro: Impeachments have nothing to do with justice. It is a political weapon that is deployed to get rid of a political liability. Period.
Banji: Loyalty is important in politics in Nigeria.
Okoro: Loyalty my foot! What the Nigerian politician calls loyalty is spurious. It means a mentee or political associate must not hold views that are contrary to the position of so-called godfathers. You will run into problems if you display ambitions not supported by the big oga. The gist around town is that Obasa felt he was strong enough to aspire to the Lagos throne without the support of the powers-that-be.
Banji: A speaker speaks no more!
Rita: How are the mighty fallen!
Uyi: The state governor has distanced himself from the impeachment saga. Claims that the House did its own plans.
Banji: Tell that to the marines. There is no way a speaker can be impeached without the knowledge and consent of the state governor. A consensus must have been reached in conjunction with the Jagaban in Abuja before the exercise.
Rita: Whatever they do, they must remember the masses, the ordinary people of the state who need support. Impeachments will not tar the streets. Impeachment will not put food on the table. Impeachment will not increase power supply. Impeachment will not give hope to the poor. It is an intraclass struggle which the real owners of the state will not benefit from. I rest my case!
Banji: Gbam! Your case is well rested!