Opinion: Between Identity and Accountability in Nigeria’s Power Struggles

By Olumide Bajulaiye

The viral commentary defending “Prof. Amupitan” taps into something deeply familiar in Nigerian public life: the tension between identity and merit, and the suspicion that criticism is sometimes driven by who a person is rather than what they have done.

There is truth worth acknowledging. Nigeria’s political history has often been shaped by ethno-regional and religious considerations. Appointments into powerful institutions—whether at the Independent National Electoral Commission or the Nigerian National Petroleum Company—rarely escape scrutiny through that lens. For many Nigerians, especially those from minority groups, it can feel as though access to influence is uneven, and that stepping into certain roles invites disproportionate resistance.

At the same time, it would be an oversimplification to conclude that all criticism is rooted in bias. Public office—particularly at the highest levels—comes with intense examination. Figures like Nyesom Wike have faced waves of both support and opposition, often tied to their decisions, alliances, and governance style, not just their identity. In a democracy, scrutiny—sometimes harsh, sometimes unfair—is part of the terrain.

The danger lies in leaning too far in either direction.

If every criticism is dismissed as prejudice, it risks shielding leaders from legitimate accountability. Institutions weaken when performance questions are reframed as personal attacks. On the other hand, if identity dynamics are ignored entirely, it overlooks a real factor that continues to shape perception, trust, and inclusion in Nigeria’s diverse society.

The claim that certain offices are treated as the entitlement of a select group also deserves careful reflection. While there have been periods where power appeared concentrated, Nigeria’s political system is, in practice, a shifting landscape of alliances rather than a fixed inheritance. What may look like exclusion to some can appear as political balancing to others.

Ultimately, the more constructive path is neither outrage nor dismissal, but evidence-based judgment. If there are allegations—of misconduct, bias, or incompetence—they should be examined transparently. If there are none, then public discourse should resist manufacturing them.

Nigeria does not benefit from narratives that reduce every conflict to “us versus them.” Nor does it benefit from ignoring the realities of identity altogether. The challenge is to hold both ideas at once:
that fair representation matters, and that performance and integrity must remain the standard.

That balance—not slogans or counter-slogans—is what strengthens public trust and democratic institutions.

Olumide Bajulaiye is the Publisher, Dailly Dispatch Newspaper.