Tinubu, beware those who follow you.
By Taiwo Adisa, PhD
(Published by the Sunday Tribune, November 15, 2026)
…Others there are
Who, trimmed in forms and visages of duty,
Keep yet their hearts attending on themselves,
And, throwing but shows of service on their lords,
Do well thrive by them; and when they have lined their coats,
Do themselves homage. These fellows have some soul,
And such a one do I profess myself. For, sir,
It is as sure as you are Roderigo,
Were I the Moor I would not be Iago.
In following him, I follow but myself.
Heaven is my judge, not I for love and duty,
But seeming so for my peculiar end.
… I am not what I am. ( Iago speaking in Othello, Act 1, Scene 1)
The above is extracted from Act 1, Scene 1 of Shakespeare’s classic drama Othello. In the scene, Iago, one of the aides of the tragic hero Othello, is telling his colleague Roderigo his true take on their boss.
Literature is life, for it recreates life in different forms. In drama, poetry (epic and non-epic), and prose, literature brings us different dimensions of life and different characters—many who lived in times past and many others who are purely fictional creations of writers. Overall, literature shows us what is possible in life and the kinds of human characters we are likely to encounter in the workplace and in general societal dealings.
In the above scene, Iago is explaining to Roderigo why he continues to serve Othello even though he hates the boss with a passion and his service is directed towards a personal end. Iago’s anger stemmed from Othello’s decision to promote another aide, Cassio, as his lieutenant—a position Iago believes he himself is better suited to hold. In opening his heart to Roderigo, he admits that his service to Othello is purely self-interested and that he will only pretend to be loyal while pursuing personal goals, which of course include revenge and personal advancement. He ends his confession with the clincher: “I am not what I am.”
In Iago’s frustrations and confession, we see duplicity and a determination to extract a pound of flesh. The passage tells us a great deal about the difference between appearance and reality—themes thoroughly treated in the play. There is a local variant of this story that occurred at the National Assembly in Abuja. I will tell that story someday.
In centuries past and even in today’s world, Iago-type characters are plentiful. They exist in multitudes around powerful men, especially in Government Houses. That is why I choose to call President Bola Tinubu’s attention to some of the claims from his aides which appear like clear daggers set against his democratic apparel.
Whatever Tinubu becomes today, his democratic credentials prequalified him. He rose to the governorship of Lagos State on those credentials, even when it looked impossible to do so. I was a reporter on the Afenifere/NADECO beat during the days of the military. Somehow I also found myself on the campaign train of the late Engineer Funsho Williams, who was running for the Lagos governorship on the ticket of the United Nigeria Congress Party (UNCP), one of the political parties tagged “five fingers of a leprous hand” by the late Chief Bola Ige during the failed political transition of the late General Sani Abacha. Before Tinubu arrived from exile to join the Lagos governorship race, Funsho Williams had toured each of the 20 local governments of Lagos on at least four occasions. He knew all the ward leaders and could reel off the names of the wards in each of those local government areas. He was therefore firmly on the ground. But the leaders of Afenifere, who controlled the Alliance for Democracy, wanted more than someone who had mounted an effective campaign around Lagos. They needed the democratic credentials of a Tinubu, who had returned from exile intending to go back to the Senate. The leaders—Chief Abraham Adesanya, Chief Ayo Adebanjo and others—zeroed in on Tinubu after the man they called the GOD of Lagos, Alhaji Ganiyu Dawodu, had declined to vie for the ticket. Tinubu reluctantly agreed to challenge Funsho Williams for the ticket, even though he knew the odds were against him in an open contest with Williams during the primaries. The Afenifere/AD leaders worked out his victory, to the surprise of Williams’s camp. The controversy that the choice of Tinubu created rocked the Afenifere boat a little before his eventual victory at the polls.
What the above tells us is that the foundation of Tinubu’s presidency was laid on democratic ideals and loyalty to pro-democracy struggles. It would, therefore, amount to an oddity for such a leader to be goaded onto the path of authoritarianism.
That is why we need to examine closely some of the comments coming from certain ministers who, in recent times, have been boastful of the all-conquering capacity of the president.
The Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development, Festus Keyamo, SAN, is one of those Tinubu followers who will not shy away from parading their man even in undemocratic colours. Recently, the Federal High Court, sitting in Abuja, nullified the transfer of the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) to Senator David Mark and also declared that all actions taken by the Mark leadership, including the presidential primaries that produced former Vice President Atiku Abubakar as its 2027 presidential candidate, were null and void. Several Nigerians, including some opposition leaders, have attempted to tag the ruling All Progressives Congress as the brains behind the inferno threatening to burn down the ADC. But Keyamo went into the media and declared that heaven would not fall if Atiku is not on the ballot in 2027. In doing so, he has done double damage to the politics of his boss. First, he has bought market for his oga by seeking to own a trouble that should not belong to him. The battle the ADC is facing is a legal one. It is not a direct battle between the party and the APC, which Keyamo is supposed to be defending. By claiming that it does not matter if Atiku is denied the 2027 ticket, he is drawing his party into the fray. The accusation already being made in hushed tones is that the government system is responsible for the upheavals in the opposition camps. Secondly, Keyamo speaking officially about Atiku’s travail means he is putting Tinubu’s democratic credentials on the line. How would the world view a former pro-democracy fighter turning around to become involved in squeezing his opponents out of a race? Such a position stands to derail whatever democratic accolade that recommended Tinubu for the presidency. Is Keyamo playing the Iago? No one knows for now. The best way a minister can help the president is by turning around the sector he or she has been appointed to oversee. People have praised Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo for tackling the rot in the passport issuance sector and immigration. Tunji Alausa has also received some accolades for his performance so far in education. But the Minister of Aviation was speaking politics when he was supposed to focus on the critical sector. Incidentally, around the same time he spoke about Atiku, the association of Air Traffic Controllers issued an ultimatum to the Federal Government over the need to replace the obsolete navigational and air traffic equipment at the nation’s airports. Instead of going on air every evening to talk about 2027, Keyamo would earn better praise for himself and for Tinubu if he revived the navigational aids at the airports and helped to save lives.
Another minister who has been speaking about Tinubu’s “courage” and decision to “receive bullets” for tomorrow is the Minister of National Planning, Senator Atiku Bagudu. Sometimes some Tinubu praise-singers tell us that the president has displayed courage by removing the fuel subsidy. I do not agree with them. Removal of the fuel subsidy is a government policy that was hastily implemented. At least we have seen how difficult it is to implement the palliatives in the aftermath. In May 2023, there were two choices. One was the continuation of the fuel subsidy, and the second was a studied removal of the subsidy. The president chose to remove the subsidy by fiat, with shocking effects on the economy, where there were no immediate absorbers. Yes, sustained fuel subsidy ensured that some oil sheikhs made billions by claiming rent on fuel they did not supply; but unplanned removal of the subsidy has landed the citizens in untold strains. Even the World Bank and the IMF have admitted the growing poverty. Recently, the Minister of Finance, Taiwo Oyedele, said that some Nigerians have been spending over 120 per cent of their earnings on food, while many others have been borrowing to feed. Yes, the federal, state, and local governments have been smiling to the banks at the end of each month; the question remains: how has their loot translated into a good life for the masses? People have praised the courage of President Tinubu to remove the fuel subsidy, but why is such courage lacking when oil marketers continue to milk Nigerians by refusing to reduce fuel prices even when there is a considerable drop in the international market? In Nigeria, we sell fuel at the same rate it is sold in some states in America; why should that be so? Are we running the same minimum wage as those states? Prices have dropped in the last two weeks, but what we have seen is a two- or three-naira reduction in a few stations. How can a $10 reduction in the price of a barrel of crude equate to a three-naira reduction in a litre of petrol here? Maybe oil economists would need to intervene.
When Minister Bagudu tells us that President Tinubu has taken “bullets” for our tomorrow, we need to tell him to stop flattering the president. In 1991, a collection of speeches of former military president Ibrahim Babangida was titled: For Their Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today. The book was published by Safari Books, Ibadan. Such a claim did not erase the fact that IBB’s regime operated the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which laid the foundation for the destruction of the naira and the nation’s economic fortunes. So, Minister Bagudu should not tell us what we already know. Let him communicate what Nigerians are benefiting from the “bullets” taken on their behalf by the president three years ago. It makes no sense to justify why a Nigerian should keep buying a litre of fuel at ₦1,400 when he knows that if he gets it at ₦700, he is assured of more amala and ewedu from a nearby shop.
