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

Rivers or Wike House of Assembly?

Published

6 hours ago

January 19, 2026

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

Anybody that knows what Barr Nyesom Wike, who is now the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) stood for prior to the events leading to the 2023 General Elections would be highly shocked, surprised or even disappointed at the trend of events in Rivers State, which boldly has the signature of the former and immediate past governor on it.

To the political watchers, observers and practitioners alike, Wike has been an epitome of deliver good governance, shine as much as you can when it’s your turn, and bow out respectfully when you conclude your tenure, leaving your successor, irrespective of the part you played in his emergence, to perform as he could without interference. But that notion seems to have exited through the backdoor since Wike’s political godson, Siminalayi Fubara, became governor of Rivers State on May 29, 2023.

Though feelers of high handedness or excessive demand of state’s resources against Fubara by Wike has not been officially confirmed, the fact that is starring everyone in the face has remained the governor’s inability to perform maximally as a result of Wike breathing uncomfortably down his neck, and using the instrumentality of the state House of Assembly, which is unequivocally loyal to him, making it difficult to further address the House as Rivers House of Assembly

From reports, the travails of Fubara in the hands of Wike and his House of Assembly dated back to the period around August 2023, barely three months into the administration. Events suggested that Fubara was choking under Wike’s stranglehold, and attempted a self-rescue. It backfired as Wike came after him with the full strength of his controlled-Assembly, and then the full federal might.

In a nutshell, the Assembly has on three occasions attempted to impeach Fubara with the third right now domiciled with the judiciary amid court injunctions.

What is more tiring in the renewed fights between Fubara and Wike-House of Assembly, lies in the fact that both the governor and members of the Assembly, who are giving voice to Wike’s songs, just came back from a six-month suspension occasioned by President Bola Tinubu’s State of Emergency declaration.

One would have thought that lasting peace has arrived even as all the state political institutions including the executive and legislative arms have joined the All Progressives Congress (APC), but the reverse seems to be the case. The House of Assembly has invoked Section 188 of the Nigerian Constitution to begin an impeachment proceedings against the governor. They accused him of Gross Misconduct, spread into eight grievous crimes.

But much as the House of Assembly is speaking through the Speaker, Martin Amaewhule, the real voice being heard by Nigerians is the voice of Wike, who controls almost all elected officers in the state.

Rivers State revel in the reputation of being the treasure of the nation, yet in close to three years, no meaningful development has been witnessed as a result of squabbles and skirmishes between the executive and the legislature with Wike in the driver’s seat.

At a time in his history, Wike denounced and condemned godfatherism in politics. It is sad that he is the one playing the intimidation card today after all he has been through in his political life, and all he has confessed with his month.

While it is imperative that Fubara should acknowledge his political godfather, Wike should understand that he has played his part in Rivers State, and is obligated to allow Fubara play his, or wait for the next election to mobilise to vote him out. But the fact from all indication says the bone of contest is on political agreement more than constitutional infraction. And that renders the whole process more shameful.

The pride of Rivers State, not those of individuals, is at stake, and needs to be salvaged. Wike should shealth his sword, and let peace reign.

The House of Assembly belongs to Rivers people, and not Wike.

Opinion

Re-engineering the Mind: A Pathway to Freedom for Peoples, Corporates and Nations

Published

2 days ago

January 17, 2026

Eric

By Tolulope A. Adegoke PhD

“The most formidable borders we must cross are not geographic, but cognitive. True sovereignty—for peoples, corporates, or nations—begins with the courageous act of dismantling the internal architectures of limitation and rebuilding with the materials of our own authentic possibilities.” – Tolulope A. Adegoke, PhD

We live in a world shaped by history, yet our future is not predetermined by it. One of the most profound challenges facing individuals, corporations, and nations, particularly in contexts like Nigeria and Africa—is the legacy of mental colonialism. This isn’t merely a historical discussion; it’s about the unconscious frameworks that continue to dictate how we think, what we value, and what we believe is possible. Decolonizing oneself from this “mental slavery” is the essential first step toward delivering genuine, self-determined possibilities. This process requires honesty, courage, and a deliberate reclamation of thought.

Understanding the Invisible Chains

Mental slavery is the internalization of a worldview where the former colonizer’s culture, systems, and standards are seen as inherently superior, universal, and the sole benchmark for progress. It manifests in subtle ways: the devaluation of local languages and knowledge, the preference for foreign goods and credentials over local ones, and the persistent narrative that real solutions must always come from outside. This mindset creates a ceiling on imagination, fostering dependency and a crippling doubt in one’s own innate capacity to innovate and lead.

The Personal Journey: Reclaiming Your Inner Narrative

For the individual, decolonization is a deeply personal journey of unlearning and rediscovery. It starts with critical self-reflection.

Questioning Knowledge: It asks, “Whose history am I learning? Whose definition of beauty, success, and intelligence have I accepted?” It involves actively seeking out and valuing indigenous philosophies, like the Ubuntu concept of “I am because we are,” not as folklore but as viable, sophisticated frameworks for living.
Redefining Value: It means measuring personal success not only by proximity to Western lifestyles but by contributions to community, by cultural continuity, and by personal integrity aligned with one’s own roots.
Language as Liberation: It recognizes the power of language to shape reality. Embracing one’s mother tongue in thought and creative expression becomes an act of resistance and a reconnection to a distinct way of seeing the world.

The Corporate Transformation: From Extraction to Ecosystem

Businesses and organizations are often perfect mirrors of colonial logic, built on hierarchical control, resource extraction, and the standardization of Western corporate models. Decolonizing the corporate sphere requires a fundamental shift in purpose and practice.

Beyond Exploitation: It moves from a model that extracts value (from people, communities, and the environment) for distant shareholders to one that generates and circulates value within local ecosystems. It prioritizes regenerative practices and community equity.
Innovation from Within: It rejects the mere copying of foreign business playbooks. Instead, it looks inward, developing uniquely African management styles, products, and solutions that respond to local realities, needs, and social structures. It sees the informal sector not as a problem, but as a reservoir of resilience and ingenuity.
Partnership Over Paternalism: It abandons the “savior” complex—the idea that development is “delivered” from the outside. A decolonized corporate entity positions itself as a humble partner, listening to and amplifying local agency and existing expertise.

The National Project: Reimagining Governance and Identity

For nation-states like Nigeria, the legacy is etched into the very architecture of the state: borders that divide ethnic groups, economies structured for export of raw materials, and educational systems that glorify foreign histories.

Institutional Reformation: True decolonization necessitates the courageous reform of institutions. This means auditing legal systems, constitutions, and national curricula to root out colonial biases and integrate indigenous knowledge and juridical principles.
Economic Sovereignty: It demands a strategic, deliberate reduction of dependency. This involves prioritizing regional trade (like the African Continental Free Trade Area), adding value to natural resources locally, and investing in home-grown technology and manufacturing. It is a pivot from being a primary commodity exporter in a global system designed by others to being an architect of one’s own economic destiny.
Cultural Agency: On the global stage, a decolonized nation defines itself. It conducts diplomacy based on its own historical experiences and philosophical foundations, not merely by aligning with blocs formed by colonial histories. It tells its own stories, controlling its narrative.

Nigeria and Africa: The Crucible of Challenge and Promise

Africa, with Nigeria as its most populous nation, is the undeniable focal point of this global conversation. The continent’s challenges are real, but they are too often diagnosed through the very colonial lens that contributed to them. Nigeria’s specific struggle—to forge a cohesive national identity from its stunning diversity, to manage resource wealth for the benefit of all, and to overcome governance failures—is a direct engagement with its colonial past.

The “African Renaissance” envisioned in frameworks like Agenda 2063 is, at its heart, a decolonial project. It seeks an Africa integrated by its own people’s design, powered by its own intellectual and cultural capital, and speaking to the world with confidence and authority.

A Universal Call: Why the Wider World Must Engage

This is not a project for the formerly colonized alone. The wider world, including former colonial powers and global institutions, has a responsibility to engage.

Acknowledgment and Equity: It begins with a sincere acknowledgment of historical injustices and their modern-day economic and political echoes. It requires moving from a paradigm of charity and aid to one of justice, fair trade, and equitable partnership.
Enriching Humanity: Ultimately, decolonizing the mind enriches all of humanity. It frees everyone from the limitations of a single, dominant story about progress and human achievement. It opens the door to a world where multiple ways of knowing, being, and creating can coexist and cross-pollinate, leading to more resilient and innovative global solutions.

Conclusion: The Freedom to Imagine Anew

In this moment of global reckoning and transformation, the work of mental decolonization is not a luxury; it is an urgent necessity. It is the hard, internal work that must precede lasting external change. For the individual, it delivers the profound possibility of wholeness. For the corporation, it unlocks sustainable innovation and authentic purpose. For nations like Nigeria and for the African continent, it is the non-negotiable foundation for true sovereignty and transformational progress.

The ultimate deliverable is freedom—the freedom to imagine a future unbounded by the past, and the agency to build it.

Dr. Tolulope A. Adegoke is a Distinguished Ambassador For World Peace (AMBP-UN); Nigeria @65 Leaders of Distinction (2025); Recipient, Nigerian Role Models Award (2024); African Leadership Par Excellence Award (2024).

He can be reached via: tolulopeadegoke01@gmail.com, globalstageimpacts@gmail.com

Opinion

Dele Momodu’s Arrival: Day ADC Became Heavier

Published

3 days ago

January 16, 2026

Eric

By Dr. Sani S a’idu Baba

What does loyalty mean to you in friendships, family, or work? To me, loyalty is staying true, honest and supportive even when it’s hard. That truth defines my relationship with Chief Dele Momodu, whom I more often refer to as the pride of Africa. My loyalty to him is non-negotiable. It is not seasonal, transactional, or driven by convenience. It is rooted in conviction. So, the moment he collected his membership card of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) in his hometown of Ihievbe, Owan East, Edo State, I did the same in Kano. In that instant, distance dissolved, and purpose aligned. What happened yesterday was not just a decamping; it was a declaration. A declaration that the long, hard road to Rescue, Recover and Reset Nigeria has gained one of its most formidable travellers.

This is indeed a remarkable day for the ADC. While many defections into political parties come and go with the tides of ambition, Dele Momodu’s entry stands apart, loud in meaning, deep in symbolism, and heavy with consequence. For the ADC, this is not merely the acquisition of a new member; it is the embrace of a movement-builder, a conscience-keeper, and a bridge across Nigeria’s fractured divides, and these qualities are evident in his record.

First, Dele Momodu’s political pedigree is rare and refreshing. In an environment where political loyalty often bends toward power, he has never been part of the ruling party throughout his entire political life. This is not stubbornness; it is principle. It means he understands opposition not as noise-making, but as nation-guarding. He knows how to put governments on their toes firmly, intelligently, and fearlessly. The ADC has gained a man perfectly schooled in democratic vigilance, one who knows that true progress is sharpened by principled opposition.

Second, the ADC has gained a tested pro-democracy fighter in Dele Momodu. He paid a personal price during the military era for resisting dictatorship and standing firmly for democratic rule in the Third Republic. That history of sacrifice now translates into a major advantage for the ADC: a leader with the moral authority, experience, and courage to constitutionally, peacefully and intellectually confront the growing threat of a one-party state and one-man dictatorship. With Dele Momodu in its fold, the ADC is better equipped to defend democracy and lead the national effort to recover Nigeria from authoritarian drift.

Third, he is widely recognized as one of the most principled and loyal politicians Nigeria has produced. When Dele Momodu commits, he commits fully. No half-measures. No double games. No conditional loyalty. If he belongs to a party, he supports it wholeheartedly and unconditionally. For the ADC, this is priceless. In a time when political parties struggle with internal contradictions and wavering allegiances, here is a man whose word is his bond and whose presence strengthens internal cohesion.

Fourth, the ADC has attracted not just a member, but a truth-teller. Dele Momodu derives pleasure in saying the truth as it is, without varnish, without fear, without apology. Parties rise or fall not only by their slogans but by their capacity for honest self-examination. With Momodu in the ADC, the party gains its greatest advisor and most reliable mirror. He will celebrate what is right, challenge what is wrong, and insist on moral clarity. This is how serious political institutions are built.

Fifth, Dele Momodu is a magnet. He attracts highly responsible, competent, and patriotic Nigerians from every corner of the country. Many see him as a part-time and independent politician, one whose ultimate allegiance is not to party symbols but to Nigeria’s soul. That perception is powerful. It means that wherever he goes, Nigerians are ready to follow, to join, and to support. By welcoming him, the ADC has sent a clear signal to the nation: this is a home for credibility, courage, and Nigeria first politics.

Wherever Dele Momodu goes, Nigerians at home and in the diaspora admire him effortlessly. He never gets tired of engaging, mentoring, inspiring, and mobilising. Without any noise, he becomes a vehicle of mass mobilisation. With him, the ADC’s message will travel farther than billboards, deeper than rallies, and faster than propaganda. This is influence earned through decades of credibility, not imposed.

I speak from experience. I was the North-West Coordinator of the Dele Momodu Movement in 2022 when he contested the presidential primaries under the PDP. I later served as his agent at the primaries held at the Moshood Abiola Stadium, Abuja, on May 28, 2022. I went round with him all over Nigeria, and from that experience, I came to truly understand the perception of the ordinary Nigerian about the extraordinary pedigree of Dele Momodu, how people see him as consistent, authentic, accessible, and genuinely committed to Nigeria’s progress.

Sixth, the ADC has attracted a great promise-keeper in Dele Momodu. Let me back this claim with facts. I was among those who accompanied him to the screening before the PDP presidential primaries. When he came out and journalists asked him questions, his response was characteristically clear and sincere: it is totally about Nigeria, nothing personal. He went further to announce the promise he took during the screening, that he would support whoever emerged as the party’s candidate to victory, and he kept that promise. As great globetrotter that he is, no one can easily recall when last Dele Momodu stayed in Nigeria for months, working assiduously for the success of his party and its candidate, His Excellency Atiku Abubakar. While many others who took the same promise were busy throwing tantrums, he was on the field, mobilising, advocating, and delivering. That was a promise kept.

But beyond politics lies the most compelling asset Dele Momodu brings to the ADC: his story. The turbulent but triumphant journey of his life can draw tears not only from the over 140 million Nigerians living in extreme poverty today, but from anyone who understands struggle. It is a story that melts hearts across class, age, and geography. Relatable. Poignant. Edifying. It speaks directly to the Nigerian who feels forgotten by birth or battered by circumstance. It tells you that you may be a rejected stone today, penniless, down and out but you can become a chief cornerstone tomorrow. Not by cutting corners, but by patience, consistency, building networks of influence, embracing hard work, and staying faithful to your dream. Perhaps this is why Dele Momodu is arguably the Nigerian mentor with the highest number of mentees across every nook and cranny of this country, myself included. His mentorship culture is organic, generous, and transformational. He opens doors, builds people, and multiplies hope. For the ADC, this is a strategic advantage that cannot be overstated. A party that attracts Dele Momodu automatically attracts thousands of thinkers, professionals, youths, and patriots he has inspired over decades.

Dele Momodu is in a class of his own. Naturally unique. Authentically Nigerian. Globally respected and travels road less travel. His life proves that greatness can rise from adversity, and leadership can be forged without bitterness. With his entry into the ADC, the party has not just caught a “big fish”; it has netted a tide-changer. Yesterday, in Ihiebve, history was made. From Edo to Kano, from the grassroots to the global stage, a new chapter has begun. The ADC is no longer just preparing for the future, it is recruiting it. And with Dele Momodu on board, the mission to Rescue, Recover and Reset Nigeria has found one of its strongest voices and most trusted hands.

The journey ahead is demanding. But with men of principle, truth and influence like Chief Dele Momodu, the ADC is no longer asking Nigerians to believe. It is giving them a reason to.

Dr Baba writes from Kano, and can be reached via drssbaba@yahoo.com