Opinion
Tinubu as yesterday’s rebel and today’s tyrant, By Farooq Kperogi
Tinubu as yesterday’s rebel and today’s tyrant, By Farooq Kperogi
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s demonstrably unconstitutional suspension of the elected leaders of Rivers State and his illegal imposition of a retired military lickspittle as sole administrator in the exercise of his otherwise constitutional privilege to declare a state of emergency in any part of the country is the latest addition in a long list of instances of his embrace of the very things he once resented and fought against when he was outside the reins of federal power.
For example, he was brutally censorious of Goodluck Jonathan’s withdrawal of fuel subsidies in 2012. He expressed sentiments in writing and in speeches that resonated with the angst of the masses. He even helped finance a nationwide mass protest that so convulsed the country that Jonathan was compelled to back off his plans.
Yet, one of the first acts Tinubu did as a president in May 2023 was to announce an economically and socially disruptive withdrawal of fuel subsidies that has deepened poverty, annihilated the middle class, and ruptured the very fabric of Nigerian society.
Again, when Olusegun Obasanjo unconstitutionally suspended Plateau State’s Governor Joshua Dariye—along with state legislators— in May 2004 and appointed General Chris Ali as the state’s sole administrator, then Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu of Lagos rightly called the act “illegal.”
“It is unfortunate and illegal,” he said. “This has to be discouraged. It is a bad precedent. What the president of the country has done, I pray it doesn’t stand.”
In fact, when Goodluck Jonathan declared states of emergency in the three northeastern states of Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa without suspending the elected leaders of the states, which I commended in a May 25, 2013, column titled “The Malcolm Xian Logic in Jonathan’s Praiseworthy Boko Haram Offensive,” Tinubu condemned it as unacceptable federal overreach.
READ ALSO:
- Communal Clash: Gov Adeleke imposes new curfew on Ifon, Ilobu communities
- BREAKING: IGP redeploys 38 police commissioners
- Osimhen breaks Odegbami’s Eagles goal record
“No governor of a state in Nigeria is the chief security officer,” he said. “Putting the blame on the governors, who have been effectively emasculated, for the abysmal performance of the government at the centre which controls all these security agencies, smacks of ignorance and mischief.”
He contended that Jonathan’s action “seeks to abridge or has the potential of totally scuttling the constitutional functions of governors and other elected representatives of the people” and that it would be “counterproductive in the long run.”
Given an opportunity to give materiality to the principles he espoused when he had no access to federal power, he has become indistinguishable from, and in many cases worse than, the objects of his erstwhile censure.
Tinubu now implements the same policies he once condemned and has become the same personality he once reviled. He exemplifies the aphoristic wisdom (often attributed to historian Ariel Durant or her husband Will Durant) that says, “Today’s rebel is tomorrow’s tyrant.” In Tinubu’s case, he was yesterday’s rebel and today’s tyrant.
Why do most people who initially invested symbolic and political capital in fighting against authority or oppression eventually become the very oppressors they once resisted? Why do firebrands and idealists often morph into the very thing they once denounced after assuming power?
The evidence of history shows us that resistance to tyranny can, and often does, end in new tyrannies. Critics of war or corruption frequently adopt those same practices when they find themselves in the circles of power.
So, this is beyond Tinubu as a person, who probably never really had any principles to begin with, whose resistance to past oppressive policies was probably mere calculative opportunism.
But why do previously genuinely adversarial people become the very things they once opposed with such regularity? Observers from psychology, philosophy, and political theory have long studied this phenomenon.
A previous column I wrote (and republished twice) on the psychology of power pointed out that “people under the influence of power are neurologically similar to people who suffer traumatic brain injury” and posited that situational, power-induced brain damage may be responsible for this.
READ ALSO:
- 2026 WCQ: Super Eagles move up to third place with 2-0 win in Rwanda
- Nnamdi Kanu returns to court, apologises over attacks on judge, others
- Binance delists five cryptocurrencies
Philosophers have also grappled with the paradox of noble ideals curdling into oppression. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, famously warned of the moral danger that comes with fighting evil too intensely. “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster,” Nietzsche wrote, adding, “if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”
Nietzsche’s metaphor speaks to how the struggle for power or justice can warp people’s souls. Revolutionaries and reformers, in attempting to vanquish a “monster” (e.g. a tyrant or an unjust system), may take on the very methods and mindset of that monster.
His concept of the “will to power” also suggests that the drive to attain power can override other moral constraints, so that once the will to power is unleashed, individuals rationalize actions that serve dominance.
French theorist Michel Foucault provides another lens through which we can make sense of the phenomenon of people taking on the very methods and mindset of the beasts of power they once fought.
He said, “Power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere.” By that, he means no one is ever truly outside power relations; even the most vicious critics of the most monstrous regimes operate within a field of power. Once the critics take control, he said, they often reproduce the very power dynamics they once criticized, even if their rhetoric changes.
The line between oppressor and liberator can blur: the roles may switch, but the play remains the same. Foucault’s insight is that systems of power tend to self-perpetuate, regardless of who is at the helm, unless conscious effort is made to dismantle those underlying structures.
In other words, a change in leadership without a change in what Foucault calls the “microphysics of power” is likely to yield similar repressive outcomes. The new boss becomes “same as the old boss,” because the circuitry of power channels them into that role.
That’s why the sadly familiar pattern of “condemning in opposition, then doing in government” is so widespread that it almost seems like a political law of gravity. It’s good to bear this in mind as we read and listen to the pronouncements of current “opposition” politicians who seem like they identify with popular causes and sentiments.
READ ALSO>:
- Akpabio told me I’d make good movements with my waist – Natasha
- Supreme Court declares Wike’s ally Anyanwu as PDP National Secretary
- Why we want Natasha out of Senate – Kogi Central constituents
Like Tinubu, today’s opponents of executive overreach may extend their own executive powers once they have the opportunity.
Like Tinubu, they will have a story to tell themselves and the public to justify their U-turn: the situation is different, their actions are for the greater good, their previous stance was based on incomplete information, etc. And indeed, sometimes circumstances do legitimately change.
But when the dust settles, the outcome looks awfully familiar. Pro-democracy activists become a congress of tyrants and justifiers of tyranny; the fierce social critic and human rights activist who once decried abuses now defends them; the liberator who once raged against oppressors now only liberates his stomach. As the Roman philosopher-politician Cicero once wrote, “It is easier to criticize than to do better.”
Fortunately, this cycle is not inevitable. Many thinkers advocate checks and balances, institutional limits, and personal integrity as antidotes, although even those seem to be insufficient.
Nigeria’s National Assembly, as we have seen in the last few years, particularly in the last few days, can neither check nor balance the excesses of the executive. It’s a slavish extension of Aso Rock. The voices of the few honest, conscientious ones among them are drowned out by the cacophony that the rapacious, unprincipled, mercenary self-seekers among them, who constitute the majority, emit. The judiciary is even worse.
It is easy to be disillusioned and to surrender amid this reality. To be frank, I have found myself in that state many times. But power must be continually guarded and checked. Philosopher Hannah Arendt observed that only constant vigilance and a commitment to plurality and law prevent rebels from calcifying into tyrants.
We must all do our part to hold people in power to account, even if we’re not sure we would do better ourselves. At this point, the only check and balance against creeping tyranny is the democratic rebellion of the people.
Tinubu as yesterday’s rebel and today’s tyrant, By Farooq Kperogi
Farooq Kperogi is a renowned columnist and United States-based Professor of journalism.
Opinion
El Rufai’s Arise News mind game with Ribadu, By Farooq Kperogi
El Rufai’s Arise News mind game with Ribadu, By Farooq Kperogi
El Rufai’s Arise News mind game with Ribadu, By Farooq Kperogi
Opinion
Oshiomhole: Behold the 13th disciple of Christ
Oshiomhole: Behold the 13th disciple of Christ
Opinion
AFCON 2025: Flipping Content Creation From Coverage to Strategy
AFCON 2025: Flipping Content Creation From Coverage to Strategy
By Toluwalope Shodunke
The beautiful and enchanting butterfly called the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) emerged from its chrysalis in Khartoum, Sudan, under the presidency of Abdelaziz Abdallah Salem, an Egyptian, with three countries—Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia—participating, and Egypt emerging as the eventual winner.
The reason for this limited participation is not far-fetched. At the time, only nine African countries were independent. The remaining 45 countries that now make up CAF’s 54 member nations were either pushing Queen Elizabeth’s dogsled made unique with the Union Jack, making supplications at the Eiffel Tower, or knocking at the doors of the Palácio de Belém, the Quirinal Palace, and the Royal Palace of Brussels—seeking the mercies of their colonial masters who, without regard for cultures, sub-cultures, or primordial affinities, divided Africa among the colonial gods.
From then until now, CAF has had seven presidents, including Patrice Motsepe, who was elected as the seventh president in 2021. With more countries gaining independence and under various CAF leaderships, AFCON has undergone several reforms—transforming from a “backyard event” involving only three nations into competitions featuring 8, 16, and now 24 teams. It has evolved into a global spectacle consumed by millions worldwide.
Looking back, I can trace my personal connection to AFCON to table soccer, which I played alone on concrete in our balcony at Olafimihan Street—between Mushin and Ilasamaja—adjacent to Alafia Oluwa Primary School, close to Alfa Nda and Akanro Street, all in Lagos State.
Zygmunt Bauman, the Polish-British sociologist who developed the concept of “liquid modernity,” argues that the world is in constant flux rather than static, among other themes in his revelatory works.
For the benefit of Millennials (Generation Y) and Generation Z—who are accustomed to high-tech pads, iPhones, AI technologies, and chat boxes—table soccer is a replica of football played with bottle corks (often from carbonated drinks or beer) as players, cassette hubs as the ball, and “Bic” biro covers for engagement. The game can be played by two people, each controlling eleven players.
I, however, enjoyed playing alone in a secluded area, running my own commentary like the great Ernest Okonkwo, Yinka Craig, and Fabio Lanipekun, who are all late. At the time, I knew next to nothing about the Africa Cup of Nations. Yet, I named my cork players after Nigerian legends such as Segun Odegbami, Godwin Odiye, Aloysius Atuegbu, Tunji Banjo, Muda Lawal, Felix Owolabi, and Adokiye Amiesimaka, among others, as I must have taken to heart their names from commentary and utterances of my uncles resulting from sporadic and wild celebrations of Nigeria winning the Cup of Nations on home soil for the first time.
While my connection to AFCON remained somewhat ephemeral until Libya 1982, my AFCON anecdotes became deeply rooted in Abidjan 1984, where Cameroon defeated Nigeria 3–1. The name Théophile Abéga was etched into my youthful memory.
Even as I write this, I remember the silence that enveloped our compound after the final whistle.
It felt similar to how Ukrainians experienced the Battle of Mariupol against Russia—where resolute resistance eventually succumbed to overwhelming force.
The Indomitable Lions were better and superior in every aspect. The lion not only caged the Eagles, they cooked pepper soup with the Green Eagles.
In Maroc ’88, I again tasted defeat with the Green Eagles (now Super Eagles), coached by the German Manfred Höner. Players like Henry Nwosu, Stephen Keshi, Sunday Eboigbe, Bright Omolara, Rashidi Yekini, Austin Eguavoen, Peter Rufai, Folorunsho Okenla, Ademola Adeshina, Yisa Sofoluwe, and others featured prominently. A beautiful goal by Henry Nwosu—then a diminutive ACB Lagos player—was controversially disallowed.
This sparked outrage among Nigerians, many of whom believed the referee acted under the influence of Issa Hayatou, the Cameroonian who served as CAF president from 1988 to 2017.
This stroll down memory lane illustrates that controversy and allegations of biased officiating have long been part of AFCON’s history.
The 2025 Africa Cup of Nations in Morocco, held from December 21, 2025, to January 18, 2026, will be discussed for a long time by football historians, raconteurs, and aficionados—for both positive and negative reasons.
These include Morocco’s world-class facilities, the ravenous hunger of ball boys and players (superstars included) for the towels of opposing goalkeepers—popularly dubbed TowelGate—allegations of biased officiating, strained relations among Arab African nations (Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco), CAF President Patrice Motsepe’s curt “keep quiet” response to veteran journalist Osasu Obayiuwana regarding the proposed four-year AFCON cycle post-2028, and the “Oga Patapata” incident, where Senegalese players walked off the pitch after a legitimate goal was chalked off and a penalty awarded against them by DR Congo referee Jean-Jacques Ndala.
While these narratives dominated global discourse, another critical issue—less prominent but equally important—emerged within Nigeria’s media and content-creation landscape.
Following Nigeria’s qualification from the group stage, the Super Eagles were scheduled to face Mozambique in the Round of 16. Between January 1 and January 3, Coach Eric Chelle instituted closed-door training sessions, denying journalists and content creators access, with media interaction limited to pre-match press conferences.
According to Chelle, the knockout stage demanded “maximum concentration,” and privacy was necessary to protect players from distractions.
This decision sparked mixed reactions on social media.
Twitter user @QualityQuadry wrote:
“What Eric Chelle is doing to journalists is bad.
Journalists were subjected to a media parley under cold weather in an open field for the first time in Super Eagles history.
Journalists were beaten by rain because Chelle doesn’t want journalists around the camp.
Locking down training sessions for three days is unprofessional.
I wish him well against Mozambique.”
Another user, @PoojaMedia, stated:
“Again, Eric Chelle has closed the Super Eagles’ training today.
That means journalists in Morocco won’t have access to the team for three straight days ahead of the Round of 16.
This is serious and sad for journalists who spent millions to get content around the team.
We move.”
Conversely, @sportsdokitor wrote:
“I’m not Eric Chelle’s biggest supporter, but on this issue, I support him 110%.
There’s a time to speak and a time to train.
Let the boys focus on why they’re in Morocco—they’re not here for your content creation.”
From these three tweets, one can see accessibility being clothed in beautiful garments. Two of the tweets suggest that there is only one way to get to the zenith of Mount Kilimanjaro, when indeed there are many routes—if we think within the box, not outside the box as we’ve not exhausted the content inside the box.
In the past, when the economy was buoyant, media organisations sponsored reporters to cover the World Cup, Olympics, Commonwealth Games, and other international competitions.
Today, with financial pressures mounting, many journalists and content creators seek collaborations and sponsorships from corporations and tech startups to cover sporting events, who in turn get awareness, brand visibility, and other intangibles.
As Gary Vaynerchuk famously said, “Every company is a media company.” Yet most creators covering AFCON 2025 followed the same playbook.
At AFCON 2025, most Nigerian journalists and content creators pitched similar offerings: on-the-ground coverage, press conferences, team updates, behind-the-scenes footage, analysis, cuisine, fan interactions, and Moroccan cultural experiences.
If they were not interviewing Victor Osimhen, they were showcasing the stand-up comedy talents of Samuel Chukwueze and other forms of entertainment.
What was missing was differentiation. No clear Unique Selling Proposition (USP). The result was generic, repetitive content with little strategic distinction. Everyone appeared to be deploying the same “Jab, Jab, Jab, Hook” formula—throwing multiple jabs of access-driven content in the hope that one hook would land.
The lesson is simple: when everyone is jabbing the same way, the hook becomes predictable and loses its power.
As J. P. Clark wrote in the poem “The Casualties”, “We are all casualties,” casualties of sameness—content without differentiation. The audience consumes shallow content, sponsors lose return on investment, and creators return home bearing the “weight of paper” from disappointed benefactors.
On November 23, 1963, a shining light was dimmed in America when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.
As with AFCON today, media organisations sent their best hands to cover the funeral, as the who’s who of the planet—and if possible, the stratosphere—would attend. Unconfirmed reports suggested that over 220 VVIPs were expected.
While every newspaper, radio, and television station covered the spectacle and grandeur of the event, one man, Jimmy Breslin, swam against the tide. He chose instead to interview Clifton Pollard, the foreman of gravediggers at Arlington National Cemetery—the man who dug John F. Kennedy’s grave.
This act of upended thinking differentiated Jimmy Breslin from the odds and sods, and he went on to win the Pulitzer Prize in 1986.
Until journalists and content creators stop following the motley and begin swimming against the tide, access will continue to be treated as king—when in reality, differentiation, aided by strategy, is king.
When every journalist and content creator is using Gary Vaynerchuk’s “Jab, Jab, Jab, Hook” template while covering major sporting events, thinkers among them must learn to replace one jab with a counterpunch—and a bit of head movement—to stay ahead of the herd.
Toluwalope Shodunke can be reached via tolushodunke@yahoo.com
-
News1 day agoSaudi Arabia Confirms Sighting of Ramadan Crescent, Fasting Begins Wednesday
-
metro2 days agoUS Freezes Assets of Eight Nigerians Over Boko Haram, ISIL, Cybercrime Links
-
metro1 day agoLagos Woman Shares Ordeal After Alleged Rape, Sparks Nationwide Outcry
-
News24 hours agoRamadan Begins in Nigeria as Sultan Confirms Crescent Sighting
-
Entertainment2 days agoMystery in Lekki: Police Probe Death of Two Nollywood Crew Found Lifeless in Parked Car
-
metro2 days agoTerror in Lagos Traffic: Cutlass Gang Unleashes Mayhem on Mile 12–Ketu Road
-
Auto2 days agoAppeal Court Ruling on VIO Limited to Abuja, Not Lagos — LASG
-
News2 days agoTeargas, Chaos at EFCC as El-Rufai’s Supporters Clash with Security Operatives