BY UCJ ELECTIONS WATCHROOM
The rehashed point is that the University of Ibadan is a microcosm of larger Nigerian society, and in that same vein, our student union politics, and indeed, University-wide politics, are in keeping with the chaos that exists in the National Theatre. One such feature that has come to define Nigeria at all these levels, then, is Godfatherism, the influence of patrons and benefactors on the electioneering process and the political decisions that follow.
Mohammed Adamu, former Inspector General of Police and career public servant, will emerge as Nasarawa State Governor in the 2027 elections. And it is not because of a storied political history, as he has no such background. Neither is he a thought leader or ideologist of any sort—one would be hard-pressed to even find speeches or writing of his, anything belying the ‘charisma’ set to see him win the hearts of the populace. But running under the All Progressives Congress banner, he has already been endorsed by several traditional rulers and prominent politicians in the state. And come what may, the people of Nasarawa will vote for him, because the Nigerian electorate is compromised by the heavyhandedness of political intervention. The elites will get what they want: a man who has followed orders all his life, and four more years to control the resources of a state rocked by corruption and insecurity in recent years.
But this is not about Nasarawa or about Adamu; the reality is that the overwhelming majority of candidates running ahead of the next cycle are sponsored by so-called Godfathers, and one way or another, these men will collect their pound of flesh when the time comes. One needs look no further than the crisis that rippled through Rivers State in the past two years, and the proxy war waged between Nyesom Wike and his godson, Siminalayi Fubara, for an understanding of the influence and repercussions of Godfatherism in this country. Rivers State would see bomb blasts at the State House of Assembly, cases of pipeline vandalism at Gonna and Ogba-Egbema-Ndoni by militants, the collapse of the legislature, the destruction of a bust of Nyesom Wike by Fubara loyalists, the limiting of the state’s finances by Federal order, and the six-month suspension of Fubara as Governor before some degree of normalcy would come only in September of this year, two years into a crisis-fraught tenure. At the end of the day, the people of Rivers State are the victims of this racket, and reports of Wike initially forcing the issue in response to Fubara’s refusal to give him the pound of flesh he was ‘owed’, serve to highlight the demerits of a system that takes the Nigerian people for ransom.
How then is it that such an ugly phenomenon has taken root in the University of Ibadan? In truth, godfatherism itself is more Nigerian than political. While Sir Ahmadu Bello of NPC, Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe and Chief Obafemi Awolowo of AG are recognised as some of the first political godfathers in the country for the crop of statesmen they would mentor, they sought more to use their godsons to promote developmental aspirations and schools of thought, rather than promote parochial interests as is the case today. And yet, these are far from our first godfathers, as the practice of kingmakers in many cultures would see similar dynamics of politicking and support from seasoned figures. The present form of all this, however, has taken root, and even outside of politics, in academia and industry, Nigerians are likely to curry favour with seniors and, in time, be influenced by said seniors when they finally get into a position of power.
Who is Armstrong Roberts? And why does he matter to you as a UI student? Agricultural and Environmental Engineering undergraduate, Armstrong, has courted controversy in recent weeks in a feud with the Student Union Executive Council, in which he’s targeted Vice-President Owadayo Olabisi, accusing her of misappropriating funds intended for the Students’ Union Week.
And while his methods, including abhorrent threats of sexual violence against another woman, are condemned by many, he’s emerged as a prominent voice in the University of Ibadan student community, issuing threats and patriotic declarations alike on the ‘University of Ibadan Leadership and Political Philosophy’ WhatsApp Group chat, which he created. Armstrong, like many other influencers on this campus, has, over the years, emerged as a crucial voice come election time, wielding more and more power in the context of our digital aluta.
It is for this reason that, like in the case of Ms Sobowale Victoria, it then becomes imperative to seek out such people for their blessing come election season—regardless of their own controversies, because at the end of the day, influence is currency—and a young, desperate student politician is looking for as much currency as possible. It is laughable how easy it is to convince our acclaimed Godfather of your capabilities. Even in the aftermath of a Student Union Executive Council that soiled their tenure with shoddy documentation and handling of finances, an aspirant for the post of Treasurer can approach you with the same generic nonsense about transparency and accountability, and when puzzlingly quizzed on ‘national reformation and youth empowerment’, issue empty platitudes on inclusive and transparent leadership and ‘U&I’. But these texts are sufficient to convince the voice of the people, and he demands that we vote for his candidate, lauding his role in promoting ‘gender equity and inclusiveness’ with a grating sense of self-importance that calls into question the motives behind any of this.
This is all the norm today, with these influencers wielding this power recklessly at times, endorsing people with personal connections to them, or simply failing to even scrutinise an individual’s plans for the union at all before issuing a blanket statement demanding their election into office, as in the case of Sobowale and Roberts. But deal with this we must, in a world where social media, rather than physical rallies or demonstrations, plays more of a role than ever in influencing the youth. Still, we must question our politicians and their methods. While Niccolo Machiavelli’s quote, “For although the act condemns the doer, the end may justify the means…” may put these actions in context when comparing them to the results, we must call into question an electioneering process that fails to truly convey one’s ideology to the citizens. Steps must be taken to engage UI students to a greater degree than is obtainable today if we want real political participation, for this empty practice with influencers as godfathers does little to foster the interest of the electorate.
Time and time again, former Students’ Union leaders and stakeholders at different constituencies endorse candidates for Union positions, sugar-coating their antecedents to get the unconscious student community to offer its electoral support they (the candidates) need to successfully climb the ladder of leadership. These endorsements are rarely grounded in merit and are simply driven by personal interests. More troubling is the fact that many of these “kingmakers” underperformed during their tenures. They misrepresented the collective interests of students, failed to push back against anti-student policies, and left no sustainable records.
Yet they now parade themselves as political influencers, attempting to dictate the direction of the Union. Rather than challenging their preferred candidates to confront the pressing issues affecting the student community, such as exorbitant fees, deplorable academic conditions, poor welfare, and the looming commercialisation of public education, they channel their energy and resources towards influencing their ascension to the Union positions. Apparently, it is a pattern that prioritises personal influence over genuine student advocacy.
The manifestation of this anomaly is, however, not limited to past executives alone. At the constituency level across halls and faculties, a similar pattern persists. The so-called stakeholders at these constituencies often endorse candidates without the consent of their Congresses, despite their (Congresses’) status of being the ultimate decision-making organs. In many instances where two or more aspirants show interest in a Union position, these stakeholders simply endorse the more popular candidates without being interested in considering their competence. When aspirants without an endorsement choose to contest, they are often pressured or outrightly coerced to step down. This distorts democracy and undermines the principle that leadership should be a reflection of the people’s will.
Worst still, associations such as clubs and religious groups are not exempt from this pattern. Many endorse their members not because they believe these individuals are genuinely capable of defending student welfare but because they hope to enjoy political patronage in return. Some organisations on campus even weaponise ethnic or state-of-origin sentiments to secure votes for their own. A notable example of this manifested when Akinte, the former President of the National Association of Ondo State Students, encouraged members of his association to support Oluwole Joy (Sanjay) and Owadayo Olabisi in the previous Students’ Union election. His justification was not competence or merit but the possibility that their victory would earn the indigenous association a secretariat within the Union. This reduction of Union politics to ethnic bargaining only deepens divisions and sets dangerous precedents.
The same pattern is portrayed in hall politics. The case of the Great Independence Hall is still fresh in students’ memories, with the former Administrator General, Adejumo Utman, openly endorsing Lonimi, the then Secretary of State, as his successor. Lonimi would later be disqualified by the Katanga Republic Independent Electoral Commission for poor screening performance, with rumours later circulating that the AG attempted to influence the Electoral Commission to reverse its decision and create a compromised pathway for his preferred aspirant. KRIEC, to its credit, resisted such pressure. Still, the AG swiftly turned to another ally, Ogunremi Samuel, a member of his Executive Council, and pushed him to run against Ikonwi Goddoing. These relentless manoeuvres only strengthened the presumption that the AG was eager to install a loyalist rather than support the candidate best suited to lead the Hall.
Incidents like these send a clear and dangerous message. That candidates, once elected, may feel more indebted to their sponsors than to the student populace. Such leaders risk becoming puppets in a wider political game, prioritising the desires of their benefactors over the welfare of those who gave them their mandate. It also mirrors the unfortunate reality in mainstream Nigerian politics, where cabals and godfathers often dictate decisions while the masses perish.
Equally troubling is the consistent failure of the so-called godfathers, associations and stakeholders to hold their candidates accountable once in office. They champion them during elections but keep silent when they underperform or act against the interests of students. This selective silence undermines accountability and emboldens leaders to exhibit administrative misconduct without entertaining cowardice, knowing their “backers” will shield them from criticism.
Meanwhile, the concerns that matter most remain neglected. The looming increment in school fees, the worsening state of hostels and lecture halls, the shrinking access to quality public education, persistent student victimisation, and the overall decline in academic welfare have not been met with strong, united resistance from the Union leaders, past or present. Even aspirants for major positions rarely articulate clear stances on these issues.
Instead, campaigns revolve around hollow sloganeering, smiles for the camera, and promises too vague to be impactful, meaningful and reasonable.
This picture is even more troubling at the national level. The National Association of Nigerian Students has, in the time since its inception, become an example of the loss of independence of a Union that allows external figures to dictate its every move. And it is this cankerworm that once again split NANS into Olusola Oladoja and Atiku Abubakar Isah-led factions this year. A sensational picture that could well have been at home in a Nollywood blockbuster was painted earlier this year, of armed thugs and of Seyi Tinubu, the increasingly visible son of Nigeria’s President, seeking to buy influence in the national student body. And while these claims were later denied by multiple parties, it remains a fact that Nigerian politicians maintain a major stake in NANS affairs, and are inextricably involved in the electioneering process and the decisions that follow. For this reason, NANS today fails to adequately serve its role in critiquing government excesses and negotiating student interests, and rather, exists as a tool for mobilising student support during national elections, and acting as an extension of the political machinations of the powers-that-be. It is this loss of ideology that has doomed NANS as past leaders and political figures seek to exert influence years after their exits from the NANS Executive Council, and this same insanity is reflected in other national student bodies, notably, the Nigerian Medical Students’ Association.
NiMSA’s woes have long been documented, from her own factionalisation to cases of monumental corruption, the death of medical students at national events, and an all-around abysmal representation of student interests. But the latest chapter in her failings beggars belief. NiMSA President, Ahmadu Sardauna, himself tailed by a long list of controversies, has annulled the most recent national elections, a la Babangida, citing ‘discrepancies, procedural irregularities and pending clarifications’. While his autocracy is not new, the manner in which he has continued to spiral in the absence of any checks and balances continues to confound medical students nationwide. In a world where NiMSA’s mother body, the National Medical Association, first belatedly criticises and then later endorses his decisions, it becomes clear that no man born of a woman can stop Sardauna from getting his way. In a move described by the Vice-President Internal as constitutionally unsound, the President has appeared to negate the decisions of delegates who voted at Delta State University, Abraka, only going behind their back after dispersal and the initial announcement of election results which he signed to throw it all in the bin and make unfounded claims that he never raised physically. It is cowardly as it is embarrassing, and to see this man go to this extent to ensure his preferred candidate is elected as NiMSA president is a reminder of the grave consequences of allowing Godfatherism and autocracy to thrive in Nigerian student politics.
To restore sanity to the Students’ Union election landscape, several reforms are urgently required. The so-called godfathers, stakeholders and associations must recognise that the Union does not exist to serve their internal interests. Endorsements should only follow an objective assessment of competence, character, and proven commitment to student welfare. The Congresses should assert themselves strongly, reclaiming their constitutional authority as the highest decision-making bodies.
The students themselves must play a vital role in developing a culture of political awareness. Voting for candidates solely based on popularity, religious affiliation, ethnic familiarity, or association loyalty undermines the entire democratic process. Students must scrutinise manifestos, examine track records, and hold candidates accountable for their promises.
Finally, aspirants must show enough courage to articulate clear positions on issues that affect students. A Union that remains silent on exploitative, student-hostile policies is not a Union at all. The students and their representatives must be vocal, principled, and willing to confront authorities when necessary. If the Students’ Union, which is dominated by the student community in terms of population, is to reclaim its power as a platform for championing student democracy, the cycle of godfatherism, imposed candidates, and interest-driven endorsements must end.
