OPINION: Presidential oaths and selective allegiances in Nigeria

In the realm of political leadership, the presidential oath is a solemn promise to uphold justice, accountability, and ethical governance. Historical figures like Abraham Lincoln and George Washington set a high standard of moral leadership and unifying vision. Their legacies remind us that leadership should serve the public good above all else. However, recent actions by President Bola Tinubu raise serious concerns about his commitment to these ideals.

For many Nigerians, Tinubu was once admired as a stalwart of democratic ideals and ethical governance. His legacy is especially notable given his historical role in restoring democracy alongside stalwarts like my uncle, General Alani Akinrinade, during the struggle against Sani Abacha’s oppressive regime. Such partnerships once symbolized a commitment to national unity and moral leadership. Today, however, his actions increasingly suggest a departure from those high ideals.

Tinubu’s decision to overrule an advisory panel’s recommendation regarding the Lagos State House of Assembly is a striking example of his selective allegiance. The panel, led by respected figures such as Chief Bisi Akande, advised that Mudashiru Obasa step down amid serious allegations. Instead of heeding this counsel, Tinubu backed Obasa after a closed-door meeting with lawmakers. This decision indicates a troubling prioritization of political convenience over the ethical responsibilities inherent in his office.

The suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has further intensified debates over Tinubu’s moral leadership. While the Senate justified her removal on grounds of gross misconduct, her allegations of sexual harassment against Senate President Godswill Akpabio remain highly contentious. Tinubu’s silence on these critical matters speaks volumes about his selective engagement with issues of justice. Such inaction undermines public trust and reflects a broader reluctance to enforce accountability.

The political crisis in Rivers State presents yet another instance of Tinubu’s hesitance to act decisively. Calls for intervention in the escalating tensions between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and Minister Nyesom Wike have largely been met with inaction. This reluctance to resolve critical disputes underscores a pattern of favoring personal affiliations over the national interest. Consequently, such a stance weakens democratic processes and leaves citizens increasingly disillusioned.

READ ALSO: OPINION: Natasha, senate and enforcers of the cult’s code of silence

The controversy in Osun State adds further weight to the criticism of Tinubu’s selective support. Although Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke has raised concerns about improper directives affecting local governance, Tinubu’s response has been minimal. His lack of proactive engagement in Osun State reflects a consistent pattern of deferring to political loyalties rather than upholding the rule of law. This approach further highlights his diminishing commitment to the impartiality required by the presidential oath.

A particularly glaring example of Tinubu’s partisanship is his persistent backing of Mudashiru Obasa, despite widespread criticism. Obasa’s own admission of being “Tinubu’s boy” deepens the perception that personal loyalty is valued over objective accountability. Moreover, Tinubu’s failure to publicly distance himself from such overt partisanship corrodes the ethical standards expected of national leadership. This uncritical support signals a clear departure from the principles of fairness and accountability.

Each decision to support favored allies underscores a broader pattern of political expediency under Tinubu’s rule. His selective allegiance routinely overrides objective accountability and casts doubt on the integrity of his leadership. In doing so, this pattern not only undermines democratic institutions but also compromises the public’s faith in their government. Prioritizing personal connections over the common good is a dangerous path that steadily weakens the nation’s moral fabric.

The cumulative effect of these actions is a marked erosion of the ethical standards once expected of Nigerian leadership. Tinubu’s approach consistently favors political convenience and personal loyalty, often at the expense of justice and accountability. His selective support in various controversies leaves little room for unbiased governance. The persistent disregard for ethical principles signals a deepening crisis in moral leadership across the nation.

This decline in moral standards under Tinubu’s administration is evident across multiple facets of his governance. The selective endorsement of controversial figures, his silence on critical accountability issues, and his failure to intervene in pressing crises all contribute to this troubling trend. Such behavior steadily erodes the trust that is essential for a healthy democracy. Moreover, it sets a dangerous precedent for future governance in Nigeria.

President Tinubu’s recent actions illustrate a significant lapse in moral leadership and adherence to the presidential oath. His pattern of selective allegiances—prioritizing personal loyalty over public accountability—has profoundly compromised the integrity of his office. Restoring public trust will require a steadfast commitment to transparency, fairness, and the common good. Only by reaffirming these ethical principles can Nigeria hope to rebuild its democratic foundations and secure a just future for all its citizens.

AUTHOR: Abidemi Adebamiwa

Articles published in our Graffiti section are strictly the opinion of the writers and do not represent the views of Ripples Nigeria or its editorial stand.

The post OPINION: Presidential oaths and selective allegiances in Nigeria appeared first on Latest Nigeria News | Top Stories from Ripples Nigeria.