Beyond the Grip of Godfathers in Nigeria’s Politics

However, in Nigeria, democracy often takes on a different meaning—one in which a few powerful individuals wield enormous influence over the political process. This phenomenon, commonly referred to as godfatherism, has become an entrenched feature of the country’s political landscape.

The role of political godfathers in Nigeria is complex and often divisive. While some view them as experienced mentors who provide guidance and structure within the political system, others see them as power brokers who prioritize personal gain over the collective good.

Godfathers serve as kingmakers, using their resources and influence to propel candidates into office. Yet, once these candidates assume power, they are often expected to remain loyal to their benefactors, a reality that frequently leads to governance dictated by the interests of a select few rather than the needs of the people.

The influence of godfatherism is not an abstract concept but a lived reality that has shaped political developments in several states across Nigeria.

In Osun State, for instance, the fallout between former Governor Gboyega Oyetola and his predecessor, Rauf Aregbesola, underscored the fragile nature of godfather-protégé relationships.

Initially handpicked as a successor, Oyetola later distanced himself from Aregbesola’s influence, leading to a fierce political battle that ultimately contributed to his loss at the polls.

Similarly, in Oyo State, Governor Seyi Makinde has had to navigate tensions within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), where certain political figures who played a role in his rise to power later accused him of abandoning party structures.

Perhaps one of the most well-documented cases of political godfatherism in recent years was the dramatic conflict in Edo State between Governor Godwin Obaseki and his former benefactor, Adams Oshiomhole.

Oshiomhole, who had championed Obaseki’s election in 2016, later fell out with him over governance and party control. This dispute culminated in Obaseki’s disqualification from seeking re-election under the All Progressives Congress (APC), forcing him to defect to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), where he secured a second term in office. The episode highlighted the extent to which political godfathers expect loyalty from those they help install, often leading to bitter confrontations when protégés seek independence.

In Rivers State, a similar dynamic is playing out between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike.

Wike, whose influence was instrumental in Fubara’s emergence as governor, has been accused of attempting to control the new administration from behind the scenes. The power struggle has resulted in political unrest, including an attempt to impeach Fubara and the defection of several lawmakers loyal to Wike.

The situation escalated to the point where President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, suspending Governor Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and all elected members of the state House of Assembly for six months. Retired Vice Admiral Ibok-Ette Ibas was appointed as the state’s administrator to oversee governance.

This further reinforces the argument that political godfathers, rather than serving as stabilizing forces in governance, often become sources of crisis when their influence is challenged.

To be sure, political mentorship is not inherently a negative concept. In well-functioning democracies, experienced politicians often guide emerging leaders, offering advice and leveraging their networks to ensure effective governance.

However, the Nigerian brand of godfatherism is rarely about mentorship in the true sense of the word. Instead, it is largely about control, an arrangement where those who ascend to political office must remain subservient to their benefactors. This practice undermines democracy by limiting political choices, suppressing independent leadership, and reducing accountability to the electorate.

The continued dominance of godfathers in Nigerian politics raises a critical question: should a few individuals determine the fate of millions, or should the democratic process be allowed to run its course?

Proponents of godfatherism argue that it provides stability, ensures continuity, and helps navigate the complex terrain of Nigerian politics. They contend that without the financial and structural backing of political godfathers, many candidates, especially those without deep pockets, would struggle to compete in elections. In this sense, godfatherism is viewed as a necessary evil in a system where political survival often depends on strong backing.

On the other hand, critics argue that the culture of godfatherism erodes the foundations of democracy, replacing meritocracy with patronage. When candidates owe their political success to an individual rather than the electorate, they are more likely to prioritize the interests of their benefactor over those of the people.

This reality has played out time and again, with governors and other public officials making appointments and policy decisions that serve their godfathers rather than their constituents. The result is governance that is often disconnected from the real needs of the populace.

If Nigeria’s democracy is to mature, there must be a shift from the current model of political patronage to one that prioritizes competence, transparency, and true service to the people. The electorate must become more discerning, resisting the imposition of candidates whose loyalty lies elsewhere. Political parties, too, must work toward greater internal democracy, ensuring that primaries and candidate selections are based on merit rather than the dictates of a few powerful individuals.

The experiences of other nations provide valuable lessons. In South Africa, Nelson Mandela, despite his towering influence, stepped aside to allow new leaders to emerge, ensuring that democracy remained intact beyond his tenure. In the United States, political mentorship exists, but power is not concentrated in the hands of a select few who dictate governance from behind the scenes. These examples suggest that it is possible to balance political influence with democratic principles.

Nigerian political godfathers must rethink their roles. Rather than seeing themselves as puppet masters, they should position themselves as genuine mentors, guiding younger politicians without stifling their independence. They should invest in institutions rather than individuals, ensuring that governance structures remain strong regardless of who is in power.

Ultimately, the power to end the stranglehold of godfatherism lies with the people. The electorate must recognize that their votes are their most potent tool for shaping the future of governance. If voters reject candidates imposed by godfathers and insist on accountability, the culture of political subservience will gradually diminish. Democracy thrives when the will of the people is supreme, not when a handful of individuals determine the political direction of an entire nation.

As Nigeria looks toward future elections, the conversation around godfatherism must shift. It is time to move beyond the era of political overlords dictating governance from the shadows.

The country must embrace a system where leadership is earned, not handed down; where politicians serve the people, not a select few; and where democracy is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Kayode Awojobi is a multiple award-winning broadcast journalist, social and political commentator. He writes from Ago-Iwoye, Ogun State