By Comrade Akido Agenro
One disturbing feature of Nigerian politics is the ease with which some politicians move from bitterly condemning their opponents to embracing the same people when political circumstances change.
Political reconciliation is not wrong. Politicians can change their minds, forgive former opponents and form new alliances. Indeed, reconciliation can sometimes be a sign of maturity. But when yesterday’s fierce condemnation becomes today’s enthusiastic support without a convincing explanation, questions naturally arise about the principles behind such political reversals.
The Nigerian political environment has witnessed several examples of politicians who have spoken harshly against individuals during one election cycle, only to become their allies in another. This raises an important question: Are some politicians driven more by enduring political principles or by the changing calculations of political survival?
A notable example is the relationship between former President Olusegun Obasanjo and former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar.
The relationship between the two men became deeply strained during and after their years in government. Obasanjo was particularly critical of Atiku’s presidential ambition. In 2018, he declared that God would not forgive him if he supported Atiku for president. Yet, months later, he changed his position and endorsed Atiku for the 2019 presidential election.
Obasanjo explained his change of position by saying that he had forgiven Atiku and that his former vice-president had “re-discovered and re-positioned himself.” He also said Atiku had shown remorse and indicated a willingness to make amends.
There is nothing inherently wrong with forgiveness. Nor is there anything wrong with changing one’s political position when circumstances or convictions change. However, such a dramatic reversal naturally invites public scrutiny, especially when the earlier criticism was expressed in such strong terms.
Another contemporary example is Kenneth Okonkwo.
During the 2023 election period, Okonkwo was a prominent Labour Party figure and worked closely with Peter Obi. He was also a strong critic of Atiku Abubakar. His statements about Atiku at that time were markedly different from his present political relationship with him.
By 2026, however, the political landscape had changed. Okonkwo became a spokesperson for Atiku Abubakar’s 2027 presidential campaign under the African Democratic Congress.
Again, the issue is not that Okonkwo is prohibited from changing his political allegiance. He is entitled to do so. The question is whether the public should simply forget the strong criticisms that were made previously without an explanation of what has changed.
When a politician describes another politician in extremely negative terms today and becomes his political ally tomorrow, Nigerians are entitled to ask: What changed?
Was the earlier criticism mistaken? Has the politician being criticised changed? Or have political circumstances simply changed?
If a politician admits that he was wrong, there is nothing shameful about such an admission. Human beings can make mistakes. But political accountability requires that significant reversals be explained rather than quietly ignored.
The danger of repeated political reversals is that they can create public cynicism. When politicians continually move from one political camp to another, voters may begin to believe that political principles are merely temporary instruments for achieving personal or group interests.
This is particularly dangerous in a democracy because political campaigns are built around promises, convictions and criticisms of opponents. Politicians ask citizens to trust them. They tell voters why their opponents should not be trusted and why they themselves should be supported.
But what happens when the same politician who once described an opponent as unsuitable for leadership later joins forces with that person?
The Nigerian electorate should not suffer from political amnesia.
Citizens should remember what politicians said during previous election campaigns and examine whether their present positions are consistent with their previous convictions. Political parties may change. Alliances may change. Individuals may change their minds. But the electorate has the right to demand explanations for major political reversals.
At the same time, Nigerians must distinguish between genuine political reconciliation and political opportunism. Not every change of political position is evidence of desperation. Sometimes people genuinely reconsider their views after acquiring new information or witnessing changed circumstances.
The real test is transparency.
A politician who changes his position should be prepared to explain why. A politician who once condemned an individual but later supports that same person should tell the public what changed. That is how political credibility is preserved.
Nigeria needs political leaders who can disagree without permanently demonising their opponents and reconcile without pretending that their previous statements never existed.
Political alliances will inevitably change. Elections will come and go. New parties will emerge and old alliances will collapse. But democratic politics should not become a marketplace where principles are exchanged for political advantage.
The Nigerian people deserve politicians who understand that public statements carry consequences and that political memory is an important part of democracy.
Politicians have the right to change their minds. They have the right to reconcile with former opponents. They even have the right to cross political lines.
But they should also have the courage to explain their reversals.
Political alliances may change, but principles should not become casualties of the desperate pursuit of power.
Comrade Akido Agenro is a Coordinator, Democratic Orientation Movement
45 Ike-Oluwa Street, Iju-Ishaga, Lagos
