By Asiwaju Kunle Kalejaye, SAN
Chief Jonathan Akinremi Odebiyi (1923–2005) was a Minister of Education in the government of Chief Obafemi Awolowo in the Western Region of Nigeria. A politician with an intellectual bent, Odebiyi later established a secondary school in Ibadan, which he named Eyinni High School.
The school adopted the French motto: “Le droit, c’est le pouvoir.” Philosophically, it may be interpreted as “right is might” — a profound maxim. It is also associated with the legal proposition that law is power.
But its most cynical interpretation and inversion appears to be playing out in the theatre of Nigerian politics today. When power precedes the law, the rules of the state risk becoming nothing more than instruments in the hands of those who command the greatest authority.
This dangerous reality was brought into sharp focus by comments attributed to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, regarding the August 2026 Osun State governorship election. Wike reportedly said that if President Bola Tinubu had wanted to win the election “at all costs,” he would have deployed him to secure a victory that the incumbent governor could not have stopped.
While the statement could be interpreted as an attempt to defend the administration against allegations of interference in the election, its wider implication is troubling. It creates the impression that the state possesses an unofficial but potent machinery capable of overriding the collective will of voters.
By suggesting that an election could be won if the President simply chose to deploy him, Wike did not appear to be celebrating the strength of democratic institutions. Rather, the remark risks reinforcing the perception that elections can be determined by the deployment of state power rather than by the free choice of citizens.
It reduces democratic competition from a contest of ideas, policies and service into a display of political influence and coercive power.
The Shadow of Garrison Politics
Nigeria’s democratic history is heavily burdened by the legacy of what has popularly been described as “garrison politics” — a system in which democratic processes are weakened or bypassed through political patronage, monetary inducement, intimidation, thuggery and the deployment of state power.
One of the most prominent examples in Nigeria’s political history was the late Chief Lamidi Adesina Adedibu, the influential political godfather of Oyo State. From his Molete base in Ibadan, Adedibu wielded enormous political influence. Politicians and political office seekers regularly visited him for his endorsement, and he bestrode South-West politics like a colossus.
At the height of his influence, he was even credited with playing a decisive role in the removal of a sitting governor.
The phenomenon was not limited to one individual or one political era. Nigeria’s political history contains several examples of federal power, security agencies and state resources allegedly being deployed to influence electoral outcomes.
From the political crises of the Second Republic to the controversial “do-or-die” elections of 2003 and 2007, and the heavily contested and militarised elections in Ekiti and other states, the shadow of state-backed political coercion has remained a recurring concern.
It is against this historical background that Wike’s recent rhetoric deserves serious scrutiny.
A Threat to Electoral Independence?
The danger in such rhetoric is not necessarily the statement alone, but what it could do to public confidence in democratic institutions.
Nigeria has spent decades attempting to strengthen the independence of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), improve electoral transparency and assure citizens that their votes can determine who governs them.
Any suggestion that an election can simply be “won” through the deployment of a powerful political actor risks undermining those reforms.
It also risks transforming public office from a democratic trust into a territory to be conquered through superior political and state power.
Opposition parties reacted sharply to the comments, with some political leaders describing them as an open threat to multiparty democracy. Some opposition figures characterised the remarks as a Freudian slip that exposed what they believe to be the hidden blueprint of the ruling establishment for electoral dominance.
There is also an element of irony in the controversy. Wike is not a member of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), yet his comments have been interpreted by some opposition figures as though he were speaking from the position of a principal coordinator of the ruling party’s electoral strategy.
Opposition leaders have consequently challenged the Presidency to break its silence and clarify its position, warning that treating the constitutional rights of voters as an executive privilege could set a dangerous precedent.
They have also vowed that the opposition will not be intimidated by any perceived threat of state-sponsored electoral dominance ahead of future elections.
The Presidency’s Silence
Perhaps more troubling than the original remark, however, is the perceived silence from the Presidency.
In a constitutional democracy, the Presidency has a responsibility to protect the rule of law and uphold public confidence in democratic institutions. When a senior member of the Federal Executive Council makes a statement that appears to suggest that state power can determine an electoral outcome, a clear response from the highest level of government would help reassure citizens that the sanctity of the ballot remains inviolable.
Silence, in such circumstances, can easily be interpreted as tacit approval — even when that may not be the intention.
The consequence is that a free and fair election begins to appear not as a constitutional right but as a favour that can be granted or withheld by those in power.
That is a dangerous road for any democracy.
The 2027 Warning
The implications extend beyond the Osun election and into the political preparations for the 2027 general elections.
For ordinary voters, such rhetoric can deepen the already widespread cynicism about elections. If citizens begin to believe that their votes can be overridden by political power “at all costs,” many may conclude that participation is pointless.
For opposition parties, it can transform the political environment from a contest of ideas into a high-stakes security calculation, potentially encouraging actors to build countervailing structures and increasing the risk of political violence.
That is why political leaders must be particularly careful about the language they use.
A free, fair and credible election is not a gift or concession granted by an incumbent leader. It is the baseline requirement of a constitutional democracy.
No individual, no political party and no government should possess the power to substitute its will for that of the electorate.
Nigeria’s democracy has survived military rule, political crises, electoral controversies and repeated attempts at political domination. It must not now allow the language of political “federal might” to normalise the idea that elections can be won by superior force rather than the people’s choice.
As the country moves towards 2027, the message should be clear: political legitimacy cannot be manufactured in the corridors of power. It must be freely given by citizens at the ballot box.
Every vote must count.
Asiwaju Kunle Kalejaye, SAN, Chairman, Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu
