Opinion

Goodluck Jonathan is Constitutionally Qualified to Run for Presidency

Published

4 years ago

April 29, 2022

Eric

By Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, OFR, FCIARB, LL.M, Ph.D, LL.D.

INTRODUCTION

Nigeria is a country of one major news item per day. At times, one scandal per day. The hot issue in the polity currently generating national ruckus, hoopla and bedlam is the presumed intention of Dr Goodluck Ebele Jonathan to run for the 2023 presidency. It does not matter that he has never himself confirmed to anyone, the swirling rumour about his purported planned defection from his opposition PDP party under which he was once elected President, to the ruling APC party. The discussants are prepared, as in now commonplace in Nigeria, to predict and to shave his hair in his absence.

I have carefully read the many arguments of those (I call them antagonists) who believe that Dr Goodluck Ebele Jonathan is disqualified from contesting the 2023 presidential election. According to them, he had already done two terms of 4 years each and will thus be ineligible to contest for a third term. They cite the Fourth Alteration (No 16) Act, which was signed into an Act by President Muhammadu Buhari on the 11th of June, 2018. The section they are relying on is section 137(3) of the said Fourth Alteration to the 1999 Constitution, which provides that “a person who was sworn in to complete the term for which another person was elected as president shall not be elected to such office for more than a single term”.

THE ANTAGONISTS ARE DEAD WRONG IN THEIR LEGAL POSTULATIONS

The truth of the matter is that the antagonists of Jonathan running in 2022, in their strange line of argument, are mainly relying on the above section 137(3). They have probably not adverted their minds to the provisions of sections 141 of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended; and section 285(13) of the same Fourth Alteration to the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the very Alteration they are relying on. More revealing is that these antagonists are probably not aware of an extant and subsisting Court of Appeal decision where Jonathan was frontallly confronted and challenged before the 2015 presidential election, with the same ground of being ineligible to contest the said 2015 election, having allegedly been elected for two previous terms of office. The very section 137(3) being relied upon by the antagonists, was signed into law in 2018, three years after Jonathan had left office; and 7 years after he took the oath of President upon Yar’Adua’s demise. Can Jonathan be caught in the web of section 137(3) retrospectively? We shall see that anon.

The case of Jonathan running had been challenged in CYRIACUS NJOKU V GOODLUCK EBELE JONATHAN (2015) LPELR-244496 (CA). In that case, the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, held that President Goodluck Jonathan had only taken the oath of office once and therefore upheld his eligibility to contest the then Nigeria’s presidential election slated for March 28, 2015.

The intermediate court held that the oath of office President Jonathan took in 2010 was merely to complete the “unexpired tenure” of late President Umar Yar’Adua, who had died while in office as President.

The appeal had been lodged before the court by one Cyriacus Njoku, who had challenged the ruling of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, which on March 1, 2013, had dismissed the suit he filed to stop President Jonathan from contesting the 2015 polls.

In the lead judgement delivered by Justice Abubakar Yahaya, the full panel of the court unanimously held that President Jonathan had only spent one term in office as President, going by the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.

Recall that the then Vice President Jonathan had been empowered as Acting President on February 9, 2010, following a motion for operation of the “doctrine of necessity”, by the Senate, owing to the protracted stay of late President Umaru Yar’Adua in Saudi Arabia on medical grounds.

When President Yar’Adua eventually died on May 5, 2010, Jonathan was sworn in as president to serve the unexpired residue of office of Yar’Adua. Jonathan was later elected President in 2011 for the first time, on his own merit, after he contested the election.

Mr. Njoku had contended in his suit that Jonathan had already taken the oath of office and allegiance twice and therefore, should be disqualified from contesting the 2015 election, as any victory he secured would amount to being sworn in thrice.

However, the Court of Appeal held that the oath that Jonathan took in 2010 was merely to complete the unexpired tenure of late Yar’ Adua; adding that by virtue of Section 135 (2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, Jonathan only took his first oath in May, 2011; and not May 5, 2010, when he succeeded late Yar’ Adua. The Court of Appeal further held that disqualification is through election, not oath taking.

The intermediate court’s luminous judgement read in part:

“In this appeal, it is not controverted by the appellant that the first oath taken by the first defendant (Jonathan) was the oath he took as the Vice President and not as President… But he took the oath in May 2010 to complete unexpired tenure of late Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. Section 37(1)(b) disqualifies a person from contesting for president if he had been elected twice. Disqualification is through election and not oath taking. Election is a process of choosing a person to occupy a position by voting. When election is given its literal meaning, it connotes when a voting is employed to choose a person for political office. This did not take place when Jonathan stepped into the shoes of his Principal who went to the great beyond. To say these things were done is to import words not used by the constitution.‎ Section 146(1) of the constitution cannot be deemed an election for a VP to step into the office of a President. Election involves conducting primaries by party, nomination, election and announcement of results. All these processes were not done. If a VP succeeds a President that dies, that cannot be challenged. It is a mode of stepping into the vacant office provided for by the constitution. When a President dies, the Vice President automatically becomes President as provided for by S130 (1)(2) of the 1999 constitution… It was not election that produced the first respondent in May 2010, the oath he took then was not an oath of elected President as provided for by Section 180 of the constitution. The process of election was followed in 2011. The oath of office taken in 2011 was the first oath taken by the first respondent as an elected President having fulfilled all the process of election.… Again, the succession of a Vice-President to the office of a President who died, in accordance with Section 146(1) of the 1999 Constitution, cannot be “deemed an election”, especially for the purpose of taking away a right that has been vested. As stated earlier, an election under the 1999 Constitution involves primaries, nominations, voting and declaration of results. That is the mode prescribed in electing a President, and once it is so prescribed, it must be followed, and no other method can be employed. All these processes can be challenged in a Court of law and if successful, the election would be annulled. But if a Vice-President succeeds a President who died, that cannot be challenged because it is a Constitutional provision, and the succession cannot be annulled. It is a mode of assumption to the office of the demised President, an ‘appointment’ by the Constitution, as it were, as no letter of appointment is necessary from anybody. The Vice-President automatically becomes the President, by virtue of his being the Vice-President. An example can be found in Section 130(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution.” Per ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, JCA (Pp 40 – 41 Paras E – D)

The Court of Appeal further upheld the decision of the lower court which had dismissed Mr. Njoku’s suit for lack of locus standi. It noted that “it is fundamental that where a party lacks locus, the court cannot assume jurisdiction….We agree with the lower court that the appellant has no locus to sue”.

On the question of the cause of action, the court held that the case of the appellant was “speculative and imaginary as none of the reliefs he sought accrued to him any benefit”.

Indeed, the Court of Appeal had awarded the sum of N50, 000 each as cost to the defendant, President Jonathan.

DID PRESIDENT JONATHAN SATISFY THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ELECTORAL ACT WHEN HE SUCCEDED YAR’ADUA IN MAY, 2010?

For a candidate to be declared elected winner, he must have participated in all the stages of the election. These are the words of section 385(13) of the Fourth Alteration to the 1999 Constitution and section 141 of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended. They provide that “an election tribunal or court shall not under any circumstance declare any person a winner at an election in which such a person have not fully participated in all the stages of the said election”.

Surely, when President Jonathan in May, 2010 stepped into the shoes of late President Yar’Adua, he merely fulfilled constitutional provisions. He did not and could not have participated in all stages of the election such as to be deemed to have been a candidate. It was not an election, but the “doctrine of necessity”, that made him President. In the eye of the law therefore, Jonathan never contested any election. See the cases of MODIBBO V. MUSTAPHA USMAN & ORS (2020) NWLR (Pt 1712)470 (SC); OZOMGBACHI V. AMADI (2028) LPELR-45152 (SC); CPC V. OMBUGADU (2013) LPELR-21007 (SC); PDM & ANOR V. INEC (2020) 17 NWLR (Pt 1753) 303 (SC).

NO ONE IS ASKING FOR TENURE EXTENSION FOR JONATHAN

The case of SENATOR RASHIDI LADOJA V. INEC (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt 1047)119 (SC) is quite distinguishable from the Jonathan scenario. The Supreme Court held in that case that neither it nor any other court has the power to extend the period of four years prescribed for a Governor of a state beyond the terminal date of either 4 years or cumulative 8 years.

This also accords with the case of MARWA V. NYAKO (2012) 6 NWLR (Pt 1296) 199 (SC), where the apex court described the time fixed by the Constitution for doing anything as “immutable, fixed as the rock of gibrata which cannot be extended, elongated, expanded, or stretched beyond what it states”. See also section 180(1),(2) and (3); and section 182 (1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution.

Indeed, in dealing with the amendment of July, 2010, in section 180(2) (2A), the Supreme Court again kicked against retrospectivity in the same MARWA V. NYAKO (supra), when, coram Adekeye, JSC, it declared: “The amendment of July, 2010, is not meant to be retrospective as the event in this appeal occurred in 2007 and 2008 respectively. The amendment has not changed the law, but is merely a clarification to the existing provision”

RETROSPECTIVITY OF LEGISLATION

Aside Jonathan being completely cleansed of the virus of ineligibility to contest the 2023 presidential election by the still extant Court of Appeal decision in Njoku’s case, as Naaman the leper was, after dipping himself in the River Jordan seven times, Jonathan is also aided by the golden canon of interpretation to the effect that an enactment does not operate retrospectively or retroactively to take away from citizens, enured and vested rights.

We may now ask the question: What is the effect of Buhari signing into law section 137(3) of the Fourth Alteration to the 1999 Constitution in 2018? The answer is found in section 2 of the Interpretation Act which provides that:

“1. An Act is passed when the President assents to the Bill for the Act, whether or not the Act then comes into force;

2. Where no other provision is made as to the time when a particular enactment is to come into force, it shall, subject to the following subsection, come into force
a. In the case of an enactment contained in an Act of the National Assembly, on the day when the Act is passed;

b. In any other case, on the day when the enactment is made”.

It is therefore clear from section 2 of the Interpretation Act that section 137(3) of the Fourth Alteration to the Constitution took effect from 11th June, 2018, when President Muhammadu Buhari assented to it, and not earlier. Section 137(3) is anchored on section 318(4) of the 1999 Constitution which provides that, “the Interpretation Act shall apply for the purposes of interpreting (its) provisions”.

Section 137(3) is one piece of legislation that can be termed retrospective or retroactive legislation, and it is frowned upon.

On retrospectivity of legislation, the apex court, coram Justice Kekere-Ekun, J.S.C, held in the case of SPDC V. ANARO & ORS (2015) LPELR-24750(SC) at (Pp. 64 paras. B), thus:

“There is a general presumption against retrospective legislation. It is presumed that the legislature does not intend injustice or absurdity. Courts therefore lean against giving certain statutes retrospective operation. Generally, statutes are construed as operating only in cases or on facts, which come into existence after the statutes were passed unless a retrospective effect is clearly intended. It was held inter alia, in: OJOKOLOBO VS ALAMU (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.61) 377 @ 402 F-H that it is a fundamental rule of Nigerian law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act or Law; or arises by necessary and distinct implication. See also: Udoh Vs O.H.M.B. (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.304) 39 @ 149 F – G; ADEGBENRO VS AKINTOLA (1963) All NLR 305 @ 308.”

Similarly, in ALEWA V. SOKOTO STATE INEC (2007) LPELR-8388(CA) (PP. 32 PARAS. A), the Court of Appeal, per Ariwoola JCA (as he then was), held thus:

“It is however settled law that, unless the law makers expressly state otherwise, a statute operates prospectively but not retrospectively. It is a cardinal principle of English Law that no statute shall be construed to have retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by necessary and distinct implications. The position is the same in this Country. In OLANIYI VS. AROYEHUN (1991) 5 NWLR (pt 194) 652, the Supreme Court held that:- “A construction like other statutes operates prospectively and not retrospectively, unless it is expressly provided to be otherwise. Such legislation affects only rights which came into existence after it has been passed.” See also; CHIEF C. ODUMEGWU OJUKWU VS. CHIEF OLUSEGUN OBASANJO & ORS. (2004) 7 SCM 53 at 93; AFOLABI & ORS. V. GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE (1985) 2 NWLR (pt 9) 734; OJOKOLOBO VS. AREMU (supra);
ADESANOYE V. ADEWOLE (supra) at 147 B-C & D-E; West v. Gwyne (1911) 2 CH 1; A.G. Federation v. A.N.P.P. (2003) 15 NWLR (844) 600 at 648 G -H; SA’AD V. NYAME (2004) All FWLR (201)1678; EGUNJOBI V. FRN (2012) LPELR-15537(SC), (PP. 34-35 PARAS. F); ADEGBENRO V. AKINTOLA (1963) 2 SCNLR 216; ADESHINA V. LEMONU (1965) 1 All NLR 233; THE SWISS AIR TRANSPORT CO. LTD V. AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD (1971) 1 All NLR 37; ATTORNEY GENERAL EAST CENTRAL STATE V. UGWUH (1975) 5 SC 13″.

Indeed, section 4(9) of the Constitution strips the NASS “in relation to any criminal offence”, the power to “make any law which shall have retrospective effect”. Though this section specifically deals with criminal offences, judicial decisions clearly show that it operates with equal force to civil matters.

Thus, in MODU V. FRN (2016) LPELR-40471 (CA), the intermediate court held that:
“The argument that the Interpretation Act applies to civil legislations only is not only untenable but flawed. A legislation is a legislation and there is nothing in the Interpretation Act to indicate that it only applies to civil and not criminal legislations”. Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, JCA (Pp 18-18 Paras C-E)

CONCLUSION

For those who were too young to know that Jonathan left office since May 29, 2015, the oath of office and oath of allegiance which he subscribed to in 2015 were taken prior to the enactment of section 137(3) of the Constitution in 2018. Consequently, as held in MODU V. FRN (supra), all rights, duties, obligations and interests created under section 137 (3) are inapplicable to his rights, duties and obligations which had accrued to or enured in him before the said enactment.

Thus, the court held in the case of the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION V. ALL NIGERIAN PEOPLES PARTY (ANPP) & 2 ORS. (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 844) 600 @ pages 648-649, paras. E-B, that:

“A statute is deemed to be retrospective where it takes away any vested right acquired under existing laws or creates a new obligation or imposes a new duty or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions or considerations already past… Based on the presumption that a legislature does not intend what is unjust, the courts have always leaned against giving statutes a retrospective effect and usually regard them as applying to facts or matters which came into existence after the statutes were passed unless it is clearly shown that a retrospective effect was intended by the legislature. In the instant case the constitution came into being on 29th May, 1999 and all rights, liabilities and privileges as contemplated by the circumstance of the arose as of that day. Consequently, its provisions can only be read prospectively.”

Furthermore, the court held at page 649, paras. C-D; 661-662, paras. F-C; 665, paras. A-B as follows:

“One of the cardinal principles of interpretation of statutes is that no rule of construction is that a retrospective operation is not to be given to a statute so as to impair an existing right or obligation otherwise that as regards matters of procedure, unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment…”.

The court nailed it when it held at page 667, paras. C-D that:

“A constitution, like other statutes, operates prospectively and not retrospectively unless it is expressly provided to be otherwise. Such legislations affect only rights which came into existence after it has been passed.”

A cursory examination of the various provisions of the Constitution and all the appellate court decisions cited above make it crystal clear that the speculated disqualification of Dr Goodluck Ebele Jonathan is grossly misconceived by the antagonists, as the Constitution must be progressively and not retrogressively construed; prospectively and not retrospectively interpreted. More significantly, the Alteration Act itself does not make any express provision that the said inserted sub-section 137(3) would operate retrospectively. To that extent, the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the express mention of one thing is the exclusion of others) applies here. See MADUMERE & ANOR V. OKWARA & ANOR (2013) LPELR-20752(SC).

It is clear that those deliberately or erroneously misinterpreting the clear position of the law may be baying for Jonathan’s blood, possibly as a potential candidate who may subvert the chances of their preferred candidates. I do not view issues from such narrow ad homine prism and blurred binoculars. It will be grossly unfair, unconstitutional, unconscionable and inequitable to deny Jonathan of the right to contest the 2023 presidential election when our extant laws and appellate court decisions permit him to. The question of whether Jonathan really needs to subject his glittering credentials and internationally acclaimed reputation to the muddy waters of a fresh competition with persons, some of whom were his personal appointees as president, is another matter altogether. Only him, and not the present state of the laws in Nigeria, can answer that question and decide his own fate. But, as regards his eligibility to contest, Dr Goodluck Ebele Azikiwe Jonathan is pre-eminently constitutionally, morally and legally qualified to contest the 2023 presidential election. So, run, run, run, GEJ, if that is your wish and desire. Goodluck to Goodluck.

Opinion

Give What, to Gain What? Reflections on the 2026 International Women’s Day Theme

Published

2 days ago

March 5, 2026

Eric

By Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya

At first glance, the theme of this year’s International Women’s Day celebration sounded a little odd to me.

Last year’s theme, Accelerate Action, was clear enough. You read it and immediately understood it as a call to move faster, push harder, do more, close the gaps. It was energetic, direct and unambiguous.

But “Give To Gain”? Give what? To whom? And to gain what, precisely? How is giving a pathway to gender equity? In the legal profession, and in leadership generally, we are trained to think in terms of advantage. What do I gain? What do I secure? What do I protect? But the more I reflected, the more I realised that perhaps that reflection was the point. Because my reflection took me to some of the most defining moments in my professional journey, and they did not come from what I took. They came from what someone chose to give.

A colleague who gave me insights instead of indifference, a leader who gave me visibility in a room where my voice would have been overlooked, a mentor who gave me honest feedback when flattery or a comfortable silence would have been easier.

None of those acts diminished them. They did not lose relevance, influence, or authority. If anything, their giving expanded their impact. Sometimes, some of us act as though giving someone else room to rise somehow shrinks our own space. But leadership does not weaken when it is shared wisely. It deepens.

That is the quiet power behind “Give To Gain”, and the paradox at the heart of this year’s theme. “Give To Gain” is not a call to diminish ourselves. It is a call to invest in one another because when we give from strength, we gain strength. So give respect.
give access. Give honest evaluation. Give opportunity without prejudice. And you will gain trust, loyalty and potential. Give mentorship and gain contunuity, give equal footing and gain the full measure of talent available. That kind of giving multiplies gain.

So perhaps the theme is not so odd after all. In a world that often asks, “What do I stand to lose?” this year’s International Women’s Day asks instead, “What could we stand to gain, if we were all willing to give?”

In the context of gender equity, the theme becomes even more compelling. Giving equal footing is not about doing women a favour; it is about acknowledging merit. When barriers fall, capacity rises to the surface. When access expands, talent flourishes. When women thrive professionally, institutions gain.

Against this backdrop, I began to think about the remarkable women who embodied this principle long before it became a theme. Women who gave intellectual rigour to complex situations and gained distinction. Women who gave courage and resilience in the face of resistance or in rooms where they were the only one, and gained respect. Women who gave mentorship to younger women and gained a legacy that cannot be erased.

Women who gave integrity to public service and the private sector and gained trust and admiration that cannot be manufactured.
Women whose boldness did not ask for permission to contribute. They did not lower their standards to fit expectations.

They gave of their intellect, their discipline, their time and their resilience, and in doing so they expanded the space for others. That is the spirit I want to honour this IWD month.

Beginning tomorrow, on International Women’s Day and continuing through all the remaining days of March, I will be celebrating a female icon who exemplifies this principle. Women who have given and gained. Each day, one story. One journey.

One example of boldness in action. Not to romanticise their journeys or suggest that their paths were easy, but to illuminate them and show what is possible when you dare to try.

Each profile will tell a story of contribution and consequence, of how giving strengthens, and how excellence, when sustained with integrity, inevitably earns its place.

My hope is that other women will read these stories and recognise themselves in them. That men also will read them and see leadership, not limitation. And that we will all be reminded that progress is rarely accidental. It is built, often quietly, by those willing to give more than is required.

If this year’s theme “Give To Gain” means anything to me, it means that we must intentionally amplify the inspiring examples that prove what is possible when women are bold.

Because inspiration and visibility are forms of giving. And sometimes, the simple act of telling a story is the spark that lights ambition in someone who was unsure where or whether she belonged.

This March, I choose to give inspiration and visibility and honour where it is so richly deserved.

And I trust that in doing so, we will gain a stronger world, a clearer sense of direction and possibility and another generation of women bold enough to step forward without apology.

Now the theme no longer seems strange. Now I understand that when we give boldly, we gain collectively. And that is a theme worth celebrating.

Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN FCIArb

Opinion

Beyond the Vision: The Alchemy of Turning Ideas into Execution

Published

6 days ago

February 28, 2026

Eric

By Tolulope A. Adegoke PhD

History is littered with the skeletons of great ideas that never saw the light of day. In boardrooms and basements across the world, concepts with the power to reshape industries lie dormant, suffocated not by a lack of merit, but by a lack of execution. We live in an era that venerates the “light bulb moment,” yet the painful truth, as articulated by venture capitalists and historians alike, is that ideas are a dime a dozen; it is execution that is richly rewarded . The journey from the spark of imagination to the tangible reality of a finished product, a profitable corporation, or a thriving nation is an alchemical process. It requires the transformation of abstract thought into concrete action—a discipline that separates the dreamer from the builder. This evolution of an idea into reality is not a mystical event but a replicable process, best understood through the distinct exemplars of visionary individuals, resilient corporations, and transformative nations.

The Individual: The “Thinker-Doer” Synthesis

The romantic notion of the genius lost in thought, sketching blueprints while others do the heavy lifting, is a seductive myth. The reality, as demonstrated by history’s most impactful figures, is that the major thinkers are almost always the doers. Steve Jobs, a figure synonymous with innovation, famously articulated this principle by invoking the ultimate Renaissance man, Leonardo da Vinci. Jobs argued that the greatest innovators are “both the thinker and doer in one person,” pointing out that da Vinci did not have a separate artisan mixing his paints or executing his canvases; he was the artist and the craftsman, immersing himself in the physicality of his work . For Jobs, this synthesis was the guiding doctrine of Apple. He understood that abstract ideation is sterile without the feedback loop of hands-on mastery. The refinement of the Mac’s typography, the feel of a perfectly weighted mouse, the intuitive interface of the iPhone—these were not born from pure theory but from an obsessive, tactile engagement with the building process. The “doer” digs into the hard intellectual problems precisely because they are engaged in the act of creation.

This principle is further illuminated by the career of Elon Musk. While often perceived as a master inventor, Musk’s greatest genius may lie in his ability to execute existing ideas at a scale and speed previously thought impossible. He was not a founder of Tesla on day one, but he stepped in to spearhead its execution, transforming an electric vehicle concept into a global automotive powerhouse. At SpaceX, he inherited the age-old idea of space travel but revolutionized its execution by challenging fundamental cost structures and vertically integrating manufacturing. Musk embodies the “thinker-doer” by immersing himself in the engineering details, sleeping on the factory floor, and distilling complex challenges down to their fundamental physics. Both Jobs and Musk validate the venture capital adage that investment is placed not in ideas, but in the people capable of navigating the treacherous path from Point B to Point Z—the messy, unglamorous grind where visions are either realized or abandoned.

“In the architecture of achievement, ideas are merely the blueprints; execution is the foundation, the steel, and the mortar. A blueprint without a builder is just a dream drawn on paper” – Tolulope A. Adegoke, PhD

The Corporation: Engineering the Culture of Execution

For corporations, the evolution of an idea into reality is not a one-time event but a cultural imperative. It demands a structure and a philosophy that bridges the notorious gap between strategy and outcome. Procter & Gamble (P&G), a consumer goods giant, provides a master-class in adapting its execution model to survive and thrive. Despite investing billions in internal research and development, P&G recognized that its traditional closed-door approach was failing to meet innovation targets. The company evolved its idea-generation process by embracing “Connect + Develop,” opening its innovation pipeline to external inventors, suppliers, and even competitors. This shift in mindset was merely the idea; the reality was the rigorous, internal execution that vetted, integrated, and scaled those external concepts—like the Mr. Clean Magic Eraser, which was discovered as a prototype in Japan and flawlessly executed by P&G’s operational machine. The company’s success hinges on what researchers call “imaginative integrity”—the ability to make an imagined future so tangible that the entire organization can build toward it.

Similarly, UPS stands as a testament to the power of “creative dissatisfaction.” For over a century, UPS has operated not on bursts of pure invention, but on the relentless engineering and re-engineering of its systems. Founder Jim Casey instilled a culture where the status quo was perpetually questioned—from testing monorail-based sort systems to optimizing delivery routes with algorithmic precision. The idea was not merely to deliver packages, but to create the pinnacle of logistical efficiency. The execution involved tens of thousands of employees “pulling together” to transform the organization repeatedly, embracing changes that ranged from entering the common carrier business in the 1950s to mastering e-commerce logistics in the 1990s. These companies succeed because they build what management experts call the “five bridges” to execution: the ability to manage change, a supportive structure, employee involvement, aligned leadership, and cross-company cooperation. At Costco, this is embodied by CEO James Sinegal, whose Spartan office and relentless focus on in-store details align leadership behavior with the company’s razor-thin margin strategy, proving that execution is modeled from the top down.

The Nation: The Political Economy of Progress

The evolution of ideas into reality scales beyond individuals and firms to the very level of nations. The economic trajectories of countries are determined by their ability to adapt foreign concepts and execute them within local contexts. The post-war rise of Japan is perhaps the most powerful example of this phenomenon. In the early 20th century, Japan was exposed to American ideas of scientific management, but the devastation of World War II left its industrial base in ruins. The idea that saved Japan was quality control, imported through lectures from American scholars W. Edwards Deming and Joseph Juran. The genius of Japan, however, was not in the adoption of the idea, but in its adaptation. Private organizations like the Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers (JUSE) took the lead, transforming foreign theories into the uniquely Japanese practice of Total Quality Management (TQM) and the grassroots phenomenon of Quality Control circles. This was not government-mandated execution; it was a national movement of “thinker-doers” on the factory floor, relentlessly refining processes. The evolution of this idea rebuilt a nation, turning “Made in Japan” from a byword for cheap goods into a global standard for reliability.

In contrast, Singapore represents a different model of national execution: the state as a strategic architect. Upon independence, Singapore possessed few natural resources and a uncertain future. The government, however, possessed a clear-eyed vision of industrial development. It actively sought external assistance from the United Nations and Japan, but crucially, the Singaporean authorities acted as the “agent of adaptation” . They did not passively accept advice; they made decisive judgments about what was relevant to their unique circumstances and demanded specific adaptations. This disciplined, top-down execution of economic strategy—from building world-class infrastructure to enforcing rigorous education standards—evolved the idea of a “sovereign nation” into the reality of a first-world entrepôt. The contrast with nations like Tunisia, where external donors took the lead due to a lack of domestic policy clarity, highlights a fundamental truth: ideas flow freely across borders, but the ability to execute them is a domestic condition, cultivated through leadership and institutional will.

Conclusion: The Integrity of the Build

Ultimately, the evolution of an idea into reality demands what can be termed “imaginative integrity”—the unwavering commitment to binding the vision to the execution. It is a concept that applies equally to the Renaissance painter mixing his own pigments, the CEO sleeping on the factory floor, and the nation-state meticulously adapting foreign technology. The world is full of “crude ideas” that lack the refinement of execution; even a brilliantly designed structure like MIT’s Stata Center can falter if the craftsmanship of its realization is flawed.

The journey from “A to Z” is long, and the gap between strategy and outcome is the graveyard of potential. To traverse it, one must recognize that thinking and doing are not sequential acts but concurrent disciplines. The doers are the major thinkers, for they are the ones who test hypotheses against reality, who adapt to feedback, and who possess the grit to push through the inevitable obstacles. Whether it is a nation reshaping its economy, a corporation reinventing its logistics, or an individual defying the limits of technology, the lesson remains constant: the future belongs not just to those who can dream it, but to those who can build it.

Vision sees the path; execution walks it, blisters and all. The distance between a dream and a legacy is measured only by the courage to begin the work.

History does not remember the whisper of a thought, but the echo of its impact. To think is human, but to execute is to leave a mark on time.

Dr. Tolulope A. Adegoke, AMBP-UN is a globally recognized scholar-practitioner and thought leader at the nexus of security, governance, and strategic leadership. His mission is dedicated to advancing ethical governance, strategic human capital development, and resilient nation-building, and global peace. He can be reached via: tolulopeadegoke01@gmail.com, globalstageimpacts@gmail.com

Opinion

How an Organist Can Live a More Fulfilling Life

Published

2 weeks ago

February 23, 2026

Eric

By Tunde Shosanya

It is essential for an Organist to live a fulfilling life, as organ playing has the capacity to profoundly and uniquely impact individuals. There is nothing inappropriate about an Organist building their own home, nor is it unlawful for an Organist to have a personal vehicle. As Organists, we must take control of our own futures; once again, while our certificates hold value, organ playing requires our expertise. We should not limit ourselves to what we think we can accomplish; rather, we should chase our dreams as far as our minds permit. Always keep in mind, if you have faith in yourself, you can achieve success.

There are numerous ways for Organists to live a more fulfilling and joyful life; here are several suggestions:

Focus on your passion. Set an example, and aim for daily improvement.

Be self-reliant and cultivate harmony with your vicar.

Speak less and commit to thinking and acting more.

Make choices that bring you happiness, and maintain discipline in your professional endeavors.

Help others and establish achievable goals for yourself.

Chase your dreams and persist without giving up.

“Playing as an Organist in a Church is a gratifying experience; while a good Organist possesses a certificate, it is the skills in organ playing that truly matter” -Shosanya 2020

Here are 10 essential practices for dedicated Organists…

1) Listen to and analyze organ scores.

2) Achieve proficiency in sight reading.

3) Explore the biographies of renowned Organists and Composers.

4) Attend live concerts.

5) Record your performances and be open to feedback.

6) Improve your time management skills.

7) Focus on overcoming your weaknesses.

8) Engage in discussions about music with fellow musicians.

9) Study the history of music and the various styles of organ playing from different Organists.

10) Take breaks when you feel fatigued. Your well-being is vital and takes precedence over organ playing.

In conclusion, as an Organist, if you aspire to live towards a more fulfilling life in service and during retirement, consider the following suggestions.

1) Plan for the future that remains unseen by investing wisely.

2) Prioritize your health and well-being.

3) Aim to save a minimum of 20 percent of your monthly salary.

4) Maintain your documents in an organized manner for future reference.

5) Contribute to your pension account on a monthly basis.

6) Join a cooperative at your workplace.

7) Ensure your life while you are in service.

8) If feasible, purchase at least one plot of land.

9) Steer clear of accumulating debt as you approach retirement.

10) Foster connections among your peers.