Opinion

Why Nigeria and others must not sign the LGBT agreement

Published

2 years ago

November 14, 2023

Sonnie Ekwowusi

Why Nigeria and others must not sign the LGBT agreement

NOVEMBER 15, 2023, might be a tragic day for Africa and the entire Caribbean and Pacific region. It is the day set aside by the European Union (EU) to pressure or coax African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) countries into signing the deceptively and euphemistically crafted LGBT agreement between the EU and ACP countries. You may be well aware that over the past few months, several meetings have been convened between the EU and ACP parliamentarians aimed at getting ACP leaders to sign the controversial LGBT agreement. For example, a crucial meeting between the EU and ACP Ministers took place in Brussels on November 28, 2022, to potentially exert greater pressure on ACP Ministers to persuade ACP heads of governments to sign the contentious LGBT agreement. Another meeting with the same objective took place from June 19 to 28, 2023, in Brussels. The aforementioned meetings ended in a deadlock as ACP parliamentarians and leaders vehemently opposed the signing of the LGBT agreement. This is why we are shocked to hear today that November 15 has been scheduled for signing the offensive LGBT agreement. The pertinent questions are: Have ACP heads of government compromised their earlier stance on this matter and now agreed to sign the controversial LGBT agreement? If so, why? Did African leaders consult their respective parliaments and their people before agreeing to sign the agreement? Why is the African media not reporting the LGBT negotiations between the EU and the ACP countries since 2021?

One thing is certain. If the ACP governments succumb to the EU’s intimidation and sign the LGBT agreement, it will spell doom for the ACP countries. Why? Because the agreement is primarily aimed at the homosexualization and LGBTization of ACP countries. This agreement, which takes the form of a treaty, is deceptively and deviously worded to impose the EU’s LGBT agenda on ACP countries. This is why ACP countries must unanimously rise up and resist the signing of this agreement. Why? Because once the agreement is signed, it shall automatically override their Constitutions and national sovereignty of the ACP countries. In contrast to the Monroe Doctrine, Nigeria operates the Dualist doctrine under international law. Consequently, by virtue of section 12 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, a treaty signed by Nigerian political leaders does not have the force of law in Nigeria until it is ratified and domesticated by the National Assembly. However, the LGBT agreement has been so craftily worded that once signed by Nigeria and the ACP countries, the agreement automatically supersedes their respective domestic laws and establishes LGBT as their new law.

READ ALSO:

It is unbelievable that the West has elevated the barbaric act of inserting a penis into the anus or fingers into the vagina as a civilizational value. The anus is meant for waste elimination; waste comes out from the anus. However, today, the West is trying to teach us the opposite. Regrettably, the West is attempting to convince us that engaging in anal intercourse is a form of statecraft that supersedes more important matters.

As far as the EU, the U.S., and many parts of Europe are concerned, any country not endorsing the practice of inserting a penis into the rectum is seen as not fulfilling its international obligations. The LGBT countries may appear as stars that reflect light, yet they are waterless clouds carried away by the winds of eroticism, uprooted and twice dead. They resemble fruitless trees in late autumn or wild waves of the sea, casting off the foams of their vomit in public. What a shame! Where has public shame gone?

For example, U.S. President Joe Biden has made LGBT rights the centerpiece of American foreign policy. This is why Biden has ordered that the American flag be flown alongside the LGBT+ flag, portraying America as an LGBT-friendly country. The US government is now persecuting Uganda for enacting anti-homosexual laws in Uganda. In his recent remarks, Biden has claimed that LGBT rights are universal international law. He does not seem to understand that international law is binding upon the consent of nations. He is unaware that the consensus reached at various United Nations Conferences is that the laws passed in every developing country, including Nigeria and other African nations, must reflect the diverse social, economic, and environmental conditions of the country, while respecting their religious, cultural backgrounds, and philosophical convictions.

Therefore, Nigeria should not sign the LGBT agreement on November 15 or at any other time. The same applies to other African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries. Instead of succumbing to the EU’s veiled intimidation and blackmail to sign the agreement, they should assert their sovereignty and walk out on the EU on November 15. Nigeria is a sovereign country, as are other African nations, the Caribbean, and the Pacific countries. We should not be dictated to by the EU. We are no longer under the tutelage of our former colonial masters. If the EU decides to stop providing financial assistance due to our refusal to sign the LGBT agreement, they may proceed to do so. However, we cannot yield to the EU’s cheap blackmail and sign the agreement. In any case, LGBT practices are illegal in Nigeria, and likely in all African countries except South Africa. The concept of same-sex cohabitation or marriage is abhorrent to Nigerian and African sensibilities. Above all, it represents a complete departure from African civilization.

I have recently participated in a conference in London organized by world-class public intellectuals. Renowned psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson and others who spoke at the conference expressed concern that Western civilization has eroded. Speaker after speaker at the conference lamented that the West has lost its history and culture and emphasized the importance of preserving one’s civilization as a significant investment in this life.

READ ALSO:

In the feverish pursuit of LGBT sexual pleasure and slavish freedom, the West has lost its core values and identity. Should African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries join the West in this madness? No, we must stick to our own values and traditions. It is suicidal to import practices and lifestyles that are alien to Africa and seek to impose them as laws, all in the name of observing international obligations. It is obvious that the EU has no respect for the religious and philosophical convictions of the African and Nigerian people; otherwise, it would not have been stampeding us to sign the LGBT agreement. Come to think of it, the EU lacks the locus standi to seek to impose on African countries aberrations that are alien to the lifestyle of the African people. Laws are made in consonance with the values of a people. Every country is interested in protecting what it holds dear or its cherished values. The EU has no right to dictate to us the kind of laws we should enact for our people. LGBT is not our value. Gay marriage is not our value. Neither is transgenderism our value. If the West is sinking to the bottomless pit of human civilization with LGBT and transgenderism, it should sink alone; it must not seek to sink together with the African, Pacific, or Caribbean countries.

Happily, at the time of writing, Namibia had pulled out and sworn that it will never sign the LGBT agreement. It is not unlikely that other countries will follow suit and pull out from signing the agreement or signal their intentions to refrain from signing the agreement. In refusing to sign the agreement, Namibia said that the agreement is “not in line with the Namibian Constitution, its legal framework, nor its intended relations and cooperation policy.” It also said that the agreement does not have a definition section to ensure that all parties understand the terms of the agreement and what they entail. According to Namibia, the agreement “refers to a commitment to the full and effective implementation of future outcomes of Beijing and ICPD review Conferences that may bind parties to future processes and outcomes that cannot be predicted at the present moment.” Namibia also complains that the agreement “may elevate non-binding agreements/strategies/initiatives, progress, and processes to a legally binding position or treaty status.

Nigeria should follow the good example of Namibia in this regard and refrain from signing the agreement. Other ACP countries should follow suit. The resolve of Namibia to exercise its national sovereignty and refrain from signing the agreement is praiseworthy. To sign the agreement is tantamount to giving the EU a blank check to fill any amount of money it likes on it and cash it in a bank. Namibia is right. The agreement is a Trojan horse. Apart from LGBT, other provisions of the agreement legalize transgenderism, human capital reduction, and queer behaviorism in a country that signs the agreement. By signing the agreement, a country consents that its children should be taught how to practice “safe”-sex, “safe”-abortion; how to do masturbation, kissing, hugging, penis touching, vagina touching, and how to avoid getting pregnant through sterilization, and so forth, all in the name of sex education or Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE). It is obvious that this agreement specifically targets the children of Africa, Caribbean, and Pacific for corruption and destruction. The agreement threatens to undermine the national sovereignty of the Africa, Caribbean, and Pacific countries that are parties to the agreement. It is targeted at overriding their domestic laws and constitutions as well.

READ ALSO:

In the light of the foregoing, the African Parliamentary Forum, in conjunction with African lawyers and some notable African NGOs, organized the first-ever African Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family Values and Sovereignty in Entebbe, Uganda last year. The conference’s communique later gave birth to what has been christened as the Entebbe Declaration. The Entebbe Declaration has not only unequivocally rejected the LGBT agreement but has also urged the ACP governments not to sign it. Annex 1 of the Declaration states as follows: “WHEREAS the ACP-EU treaty’s supremacy clause invalidates provisions in any existing treaty with which it conflicts, thereby also violating the national sovereignty of countries and the integrity of regional and sub-regional bodies, including the African Union and the integration of regional economic communities. WHEREAS the ACP-EU treaty violates cultural and religious values and undermines the integrity of African family values by mandating the implementation of sexual and reproductive health services and “Sexual and reproductive health and rights” (SRHR), deceptively requiring the legalization of abortion, prostitution, same-sex marriage, special LGBT “rights,” and child sexualization. THEREFORE, we collectively urge all heads of African ACP States not to sign the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement and urge their respective parliaments and legislatures, which are the national law-making bodies of African States, to refuse to ratify this deceptive treaty.”

In conclusion, the EU should leave ACP countries alone in this LGBT matter. Life is about living and letting live. The EU should allow ACP countries to make their own decisions. Practices like LGBT lifestyles cannot be referred to as “human rights”; otherwise, deviant behaviors such as embezzlement of public funds, graft, scams, murder, theft, terrorist attacks, human trafficking, and so forth could also be referred to as “human rights.” You may be aware that as far back as June 29, 2016, the prestigious and highly esteemed European Court of Human Rights, sitting in Strasbourg, France, delivered a historic and unimpeachable judgment that LGBTQ+ is not a human right. The court, which is the highest court in Europe, held that “marriages” entered into by people of the same sex cannot be considered as marriages. As important as this judgment is, the liberal media, such as pro-gay CNN or pro-gay BBC, and others refused to report it.

Therefore, following the good example of Namibia, Nigeria, and the other ACP countries, we must not sign the LGBT agreement. The truth remains that when democracies lose their constituting philosophical and legal principles—when wrongs are described as “rights,” and the tools of law are deployed to do and justify evil—democracies metamorphose into LGBT totalitarianism.

***Sonnie Ekwowusi is the chairman, Human & Constitutional Rights Committee, African Bar Association.

Why Nigeria and others must not sign the LGBT agreement

Opinion

How opposition Tinubu would treat President Tinubu, By Farooq Kperogi

Published

17 hours ago

April 4, 2026

Trends Admin

Kperogi is a renowned columnist and United States-based Professor of Journalism

Farooq Kperogi

How opposition Tinubu would treat President Tinubu, By Farooq Kperogi

You may resent Bola Ahmed Tinubu, but you can’t deny that he has earned his place in Nigerian political history as one of the, if not the, most consequential opposition figures in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic. He constructed a carefully planned political and rhetorical template to oppose central governments effectively and then converted the symbolic capital he gained into a path to the presidency.

By May 29, Tinubu will mark his third year as president. He is beset by the same constraints his predecessors faced and is reacting to opponents almost exactly as they did, perhaps with even more viciousness and guile.

But the opposition seems to be in the wilderness. It is flustered, incoherent, spineless, and in strategic disarray. It would do well to study how an opposition Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu would have confronted an increasingly tyrannical and devious President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

If Bola Ahmed Tinubu were in opposition today, watching a president preside over widening and deepening oceans of blood and rising insecurity, constrict the space for alternative parties, intensify economic hardship and offer only perfunctory condolence optics amid horrendous mass slaughters, he would launch a sustained, strategic, organized, merciless and unsparing regime of critical engagement using every available medium. We know this because we have a record of him doing precisely that.

My recollection of his key moves as an opposition politician aren’t intended to be exhaustive. They are merely representative.

In March 2013, for instance, in remarks widely reported at the time, Tinubu said that if President Goodluck Jonathan could not guarantee security, he should “honorably resign.” By November 2014, his tone had hardened. According to TheCable, Tinubu said that in any serious country Jonathan would have resigned over the scale of insecurity in the country.

In the same 2014, he accused Jonathan’s government of “failure, lack of capacity, vision and creativity” and of misleading Nigerians about the true state of security.

READ ALSO:

That is the vocabulary Tinubu reaches for when he is not in power. He did not treat insecurity as a complicated policy arena deserving of cautious language. He treated it as evidence of unfitness for office.

An aggregation of all his statements about the insecurity that pervaded the country when Jonathan was in government (which has become worse on his watch) amounted to this: insecurity equals loss of legitimacy. That was one of his most potent rhetorical blitzkriegs against Jonathan, which traveled beyond the shores of Nigeria.

The same pattern holds for economic distress. On January 11, 2012, in an article published by PM News, Tinubu attacked Jonathan’s removal of fuel subsidy, dubbing it the “Jonathan tax.” He said the policy breached the social contract between the rulers and the ruled, described it as a punitive imposition on the poor and, crucially, urged Nigerians to resist it.

He wrote that citizens had a duty to “peacefully demonstrate and record their opposition.” That line matters. It shows that Tinubu, in opposition, does not merely diagnose hardship. He authorizes not just rhetorical dissent but physical rebellion against it.

Following his exhortation, there were disabling, convulsive and fatal nationwide protests and strikes. Tinubu aligned himself with that mood. He did not urge patience. He gave moral and political cover to resistance. Some even said he funded the protests, called “Occupy Nigeria,” in which at least 12 people died. It ultimately forced Jonathan to reverse the withdrawal of subsidies, which Tinubu is now implementing with more soullessness than Jonathan ever did.

He also does not leave resistance unorganized. On February 6, 2013, opposition parties merged into what became the All Progressives Congress. Tinubu was one of the principal architects of that coalition. The merger’s stated aim was to end corruption, insecurity and economic stagnation. It was a calculated attempt to convert grievance into power. Tinubu did not wait for electoral cycles to do their work. He engineered an alternative.

When he believed the Jonathan administration was using institutions against the opposition, he said so without equivocation. In January 2014, during the Rivers State political crisis, Tinubu described the disruption of opposition activity as “a frontal assault against democracy” and even a “coup against democracy.” In November 2014, after the chaos at the National Assembly, he again held Jonathan responsible. He saw pattern, not accident, and he said it plainly.

READ ALSO:

He went further. In October 2014, when Jonathan sought legislative approval for a $1 billion loan to fight Boko Haram, Tinubu opposed it. He argued that the funds could be used for political purposes rather than security. In other words, he was willing to recast even security spending as partisan maneuvering. That instinct has not been erased by time.

Now bring this record forward.

On April 2, 2026, President Tinubu met victims of the Plateau killings at the airport rather than visiting affected communities, with the presidency citing time and logistical constraints. Strip away the explanations and look at it from the vantage point of opposition Tinubu. This is the sort of image he historically converts into a political weapon. He would not defend it. He would amplify it as proof of cold detachment and deadly incompetence.

In fact, the seemingly intractable and worsening sanguinary communal upheavals that are spreading all over the country and the rising mass abductions for ransom that seem to be unabating would have constituted more than sufficient grounds for opposition Tinubu to delegitimize the presidency of President Tinubu.

There is also the matter of political space. Tinubu’s own rise was made possible by the constellation of opposition forces. The 2013 merger was a deliberate construction of an alternative to an incumbent he portrayed as incompetent and anti-democratic. If he were outside power today and perceived any effort, real or imagined, to frustrate the emergence of rival parties, such as we are seeing with the ADC, he would not respond with restraint. His record from 2013 to 2015 shows a readiness to build countervailing structures and to accuse incumbents of undermining democracy.

In early 2013 when there were credible fears that INEC might block or frustrate the registration of the new opposition merger that became the APC, including the controversy over a rival party using the same acronym, Tinubu framed any attempt to deny registration as authoritarian sabotage of democracy by the president.

Tinubu’s stance as opposition was confrontational and absolutist. When he was outside power, he interpreted procedural or institutional resistance in maximalist terms as existential threats to democracy, not routine political or legal friction.

And he routinely blamed it on the sneaky wiles of the president, not the institutions that were responsible for the actions he railed against. Opposition Tinubu would have put the blame for INEC’s withdrawal of recognition of the David Mark-led leadership of the ADC squarely on President Tinubu’s desk and would have called it Tinubu’s fascist, cowardly, fear-inspired strangulation of a rival, oppositional political space.

What emerges from this is not a series of isolated reactions but a coherent oppositional method. Tinubu indicts insecurity as presidential failure, frames economic pain as betrayal, promotes and legitimizes physical public resistance, works to consolidate opposition power and heaps all blames for the misfortunes of the opposition on the president. He combined rhetoric with organization. He did not do half measures.

Tinubu in opposition would not recognize the defenses now offered on behalf of Tinubu in power. He would reject them, loudly and repeatedly, and he would mobilize against them.

Criticism of Bola Ahmed Tinubu on the grounds that his NADECO-era allies or Southwest loyalists no longer protest policies they had consistently condemned misses a basic truth about power. People rarely mobilize against themselves, their benefactors or the networks that sustain them. Expecting otherwise is naïve.

The more useful lesson is not to lament their silence but to study Tinubu’s own playbook when he stood outside power. He exemplified disciplined opposition, coalition building, strategic messaging and relentless pursuit of institutional leverage. Those outside the orbit of power should stop waiting for insiders to revolt and instead organize to displace them. Power is not donated; it is taken. Tinubu has proved that.

How opposition Tinubu would treat President Tinubu, By Farooq Kperogi

Kperogi is a renowned columnist and United States-based Professor of Journalism.

Opinion

Adelabu’s Power Lines as Laundry Lines

Published

1 day ago

April 3, 2026

Trends Admin

Azu Ishiekwene

Adelabu’s Power Lines as Laundry Lines

Azu Ishiekwene

In many parts of the country, the rains poured down earlier in the week, bringing much physical and psychological relief from the searing heat.

The absence of electricity from public supply channels made it worse. Average daytime temperatures throughout March ranged from 33 degrees to 38 degrees centigrade in Lagos and Abuja, respectively.

Nigeria’s public electricity grid must rank among the most intractable problems any developing country could face. There is hardly anything more constant than the announcement of grid collapse, which leaves businesses and homes seeking alternatives and incurring unplanned expenses while paying for electricity not supplied.

What Candidate Tinubu promised

During his 2023 campaign, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu said that if he didn’t fix the problem, he shouldn’t be voted in for a second term. He must be regretting that statement now. Since the beginning of his administration in May 2023, there have been multiple grid collapses, with the highest number recorded in 2024 at 12. Even when incidents were fewer, sporadic outages have continued. The failure, on face value, is attributed to a mix of technical, structural and administrative weaknesses in the system. But there is more to it in the sense in which it is said: “The more you see, the less you understand.”

So unreliable is the public electricity supply that the Presidential villa appropriated N10 billion in 2025, and an additional N7 billion in 2026 for the installation of a solar mini grid that will effectively disconnect Nigeria’s seat of power from the national grid, bedevilled by ageing transmission lines which collapse repeatedly from sabotage, poor maintenance, and frequency imbalances.

The joke is on us

Nigerians, ever ready to make a jest of their tragic maladies and long suffering, are beaten when it comes to power outages. They are shocked beyond humour. If the high-tension cables were not too high overhead, people in communities through which they run would not hesitate to hang their laundry on them – knowing from experience that the lines are just part of the landscape and are very likely to be without electricity.

READ ALSO:

I have seen a video of a masquerade performing on a streetlight pole. Of course, the crowd applauded its invincibility; yet, both the crowd and the masquerade knew better. The lines had not been electrified for months and were unlikely to be for the spell of the circus.

Hope was rekindled at the beginning of the Tinubu administration when news filtered through that the currently embattled former governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, had not only produced a blueprint, but was going to be given the assignment of sorting out Nigeria’s notorious electricity sector. I learnt reliably that, as part of his plan, El-Rufai was discussing a $10 billion investment agreement with the Saudis before he ran into rough weather.

The coming of Adebayo

That was how Adebayo Adelabu took the job – a job at which he has performed so disastrously, saying he failed would be an honour. But it’s not his fault – it’s the fault of the President who appointed him and the Senate that cleared him for a job that he was clearly incompetent to perform, either based on his record or based on any hope of redemption. He is brilliant, but the power sector is littered with the remains of brilliant people, among whom he is now a fossil.

His better years were when he worked as an auditor at PWC. He was also the Executive Director/CFO at First Bank, and later a deputy governor at the Central Bank. He may not have been directly responsible for the misfortunes of these institutions at the time, but he doesn’t exactly smell of roses.

In the normal course of things, his banking career should have been a yellow flag. Still, Nigeria being Nigeria, the quota system and political connections ensured that he defied gravity.

Then, in 2023, Tinubu offered him the position of Minister of Power, after his failed attempt to become governor of Oyo State on the platform of the Accord Party. That only worsened our misery. Adelabu will be best remembered for splitting electricity consumers into parallel payment bands that do not necessarily reflect improved services.

The thing is not that Adelabu failed at his job. It’s the lack of evidence that he tried. Mr Dan Kunle, an energy expert familiar with the history of that sector, told me that, “No one is saying a power minister should provide the resources to fix the sector from thin air. It’s for him to provide a solid framework that would create the right environment and attract sovereign intervention.”

Adelabu, like many of his predecessors, is running the power ministry in 2026 with the 1950 operational manual of the Electricity Corporation of Nigeria (ECN). Yet, even then, when the country had a population of about 50 million, the British knew that electricity was an economic good. To provide meaningful and sustainable service, they had to prioritise not just the key administrative centres but also areas that could pay. That was why, for example, coal was shipped from Enugu to the Ijora Power Station in Lagos.

No roadmap

Adelabu has no roadmap, or if he has one for a population four times what it was under ECN, it’s a roadmap to nowhere. The same old problems persist: gas shortages, moribund plants, infrastructure deficits, massive debts, and frequent grid collapses, limiting supply to about 4,000 MW despite a capacity of 13,000 MW.

READ ALSO:

While Adelabu may wring his hands alongside Nigerians when the lights trip off, the sector has been drowning under the yoke of N6 trillion in debt as of late 2025, fuelled by non-cost-reflective tariffs and unpaid bills to both generating and distribution companies. Some of the problems predate Adelabu, but his incompetence has worsened them.

Yet, he still has ambition. Not to redeem himself after his disastrous three years as minister, but to become the governor of Oyo State. Obviously, he believes the reward for poor performance is a higher office. He is so shameless, it means nothing to him that he holds the Olympic record for national grid collapse. It means nothing to him that Nigerian businesses are powered by Indian generators and their homes by Chinese solar panels.

Examples from Africa

Egypt, with a population of 110 million, has 100 percent universal electricity access, supported by a heavy reliance on gas (81 percent) and growing low-carbon sources like hydropower. This ensures a stable supply amid population pressures.

South Africa serves 85-90 percent of its 62 million residents but faces severe shortages. Frequent load shedding persists due to Eskom’s debt, ageing infrastructure, and maintenance issues, despite high per-capita generation.

Ghana reaches 88-89 percent coverage for 34 million people, with hydro and thermal power dominating. Urban areas enjoy near-99 percent access, while rural areas still have gaps and occasional outages.

Kenya hits 76 percent for 56 million, excelling in urban (97 percent) and geothermal power. Rural expansion lags, though targets aim for full access by 2030.

Compared to the countries above, only 57 percent of Nigerians are grid-connected, with outages occurring 85 percent of the time, and poor metering and corruption that sustain estimated billing and inefficiencies.

After watching Adelabu perform so poorly over the last two years on the national stage, I was hoping he would go away quietly, under the shadow of the darkness he has fostered. But since he insists that he won’t leave quietly – or appears determined to stay on – I’m considering a self-appointed mission to drag him to Oyo State to see how he will turn their night into day.

Adelabu’s Power Lines as Laundry Lines

Ishiekwene is the Editor-In-Chief of LEADERSHIP and author of the book, Writing for Media and Monetising It.

Opinion

Super Bowl: Can Africa Spring Up anew?

Published

1 week ago

March 28, 2026

Trends Admin

Super Bowl: Can Africa Spring Up anew?

With a landmass of approximately 9.83 million km² and a population of 334–336 million as of 2025—making it the third-largest country in the world—the United States is massive. It is four times the size of Algeria, Africa’s largest country, and dwarfs Nigeria, the continent’s most populous nation.

The United States is a titan among nations. Who knows—perhaps neologists will coin a new term if the U.S. eventually purchases or forcefully takes Greenland from Denmark, further surging its landmass and population. When this massive scale fuses with unparalleled infrastructure, world-class venues, and a vast market, the USA becomes an ideal host for international sporting events with strong returns on investment.

Between 1904 and 2025, the USA hosted one FIFA World Cup (with another to be co-hosted in 2026 with Mexico and Canada), four Summer Olympics, four Winter Olympics, and one FIBA Basketball World Cup. Unlike soccer, which is still finding its footing in the United States—even with Major League Soccer (MLS) having existed for 30 years—American football is the undisputed number-one sport. The Super Bowl—born from Lamar Hunt’s “light-bulb moment”—is the crown jewel. The Super Bowl has become what sociologists call a secular ritual, binding the social fabric of Americans together.

Beyond the Vince Lombardi Trophy, the Super Bowl has evolved into a global marketing masterpiece. From the famous 1984 Apple commercial introducing the Macintosh, which is studied in MBA classes worldwide, to the 1979 Mean Joe Greene Coca-Cola commercial that showed genteel human warmth winning over fearsomeness, the intentionality of brands going head-to-head with rivals has been a recurring feature of every Super Bowl.

While the USA is always attractive for hosting events, the Super Bowl’s success pivots on intellection that results in ingenious marketing. For the recent Super Bowl LX on February 8, 2026, two brands mirrored David Ben-Gurion’s principle of “taking the fight to the enemy.” Pepsi and Anthropic’s Claude entered with an offensive strategy: Claude’s AI ad—“Ads are coming to AI. But not to Claude.”—was a calculated strike in the competitive AI market, while Pepsi’s polar bear blind test revived the sulphurous rivalry with Coca-Cola. Many companies use their ad slots to build brand identity and equity or announce arrival in the business world.

Where does Africa stand in this Super Bowl business and sports calculus? While developed nations are making groundbreaking launches with chutzpah and creativity from creative shops—all resulting in a participatory economy—Africa’s involvement is largely an on-the-field display of Négritude spirit and ravenous passion.

For Africa, the Super Bowl has become a “badge of honor” through representation. Mohammed Elewonibi, a Nigerian raised in Canada, was the first player of African origin to win a Super Bowl (XXVI, 1992, with the Washington Redskins). Since then, nearly 41 players of Nigerian origin or heritage have won—the most of any African country—including six who tasted victory with the recent Seattle Seahawks: Uchenna Nwosu, Nick Emmanwori, Boye Mafe, Jaxon Smith-Njigba (of Nigerian and Sierra Leonean roots), Jalen Milroe, and Olu Oluwatimi.

Yet, as impressive as African athletes are in making the continent proud, we have blatantly failed to translate that audience engagement into commercial windfalls like the Super Bowl on home soil. It is appalling that most of Africa’s sporting events—the Durban July Handicap, Senegalese wrestling (Laamb), or the Safari Rally—have not fully harnessed the intersection of sports and marketing. Even the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON), despite its 3.45 billion cumulative viewers (far surpassing the Super Bowl’s ~125–127 million), lacks comparable marketing prestige. Why are there no global product launches during our matches? Why aren’t AI giants capitalizing on Africa’s tech startup boom?

Africa is being fed celery when it deserves the whole salad. This asymmetry stems from structural economic factors, but the genie is out of the bottle—we must be forward-looking. To turn African sporting events into “goldmines,” we must reinvent the industry, much as Cirque du Soleil did for the circus. Facing declining audiences, rising costs, and fierce competition, it lost its grip on the circus business. Cirque, however, escaped the dying circus business by reinventing it.

By viewing competition through a new lens, Africa can transform massive viewership into unparalleled economic advantage and value. Just as Cirque du Soleil created uncontested market space, African sports must adopt what W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne called a “Blue Ocean Strategy”—creating uncontested market space and making competition irrelevant. Much as we can not compete toe to toe with advanced economies , we should not follow them like zombies.

In their book Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition Irrelevant, the authors highlight how companies in “red oceans” fight for shrinking profits in crowded, defined markets. African sports events currently sit in those crowded red oceans. To elevate them, we need disruptive leaders willing to venture into untapped markets, create new demand, and unlock unlimited growth opportunities.

Joseph Pine and James Gilmore, in their book The Experience Economy, wrote about the need to transform commodities into experiences. As Africans, we have been able to move our sporting events from the commodity stage to the third stage—service delivery—but the experience stage is the North Star we should aspire to reach.

Our cultures, as varied as they are, define us. Despite dilution by Western civilization, our culture stands uneroded, like the mountains that litter our landscape and serve as a canopy to preserve our common heritage. This means our forefathers took culture into the realm of experience—something we are still grappling with in our sporting spectacles today. For us to make headway, our cultures—already bubbling with experience—must mix seamlessly with our sporting spectacles.

Now is the time to merge cultural events like the Eyo Festival, Argungu Festival, Gnaoua World Music Festival, Osun Osogbo Festival, Meskel Festival, and others with our sporting spectacles—that is the Blue Ocean Strategy. This can only be achieved through close collaboration between leaders in sports administration and marketing professionals selling experiences, and the time is now. As this is done, a line from David Diop’s poem Africa—“That is your Africa springing up anew”—would fill our lips.

The experience stage is the nirvana!

Toluwalope Shodunke

Can be reached via tolushodunke@yahoo.com