by Mohammed Bello Doka
August 12, 2026.
There is a moment in the life of a nation when a leader's words cease to be mere rhetoric and become something far more dangerous. They become permission. They become a signal to the faithful that the guardrails of decency, law, and constitutional order have been quietly dismantled. President Bola Tinubu reached that moment when he stood before the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria at the Presidential Villa in Abuja and declared, with the full weight of his office, that "all is fair in politics".
It was a phrase plucked from the dusty shelves of proverbial convenience, but in the context of Nigeria's fragile democracy, it landed like a grenade. Cardinal John Onaiyekan, ever the voice of moral clarity, immediately pushed back, stating that the president's position was "certainly not correct" and that "there is propriety in everything". Yet the damage was already done. The president had not merely spoken; he had issued a doctrinal shift, a philosophical reorientation of what is permissible in the pursuit and retention of power.
Human rights lawyer Maduabuchi Idam saw it for what it was: an "invitation to ballot rascality" and an "open cheque to anarchy and political violence". He asked the question that should haunt every Nigerian citizen: "How is a supporter of the President expected to understand that hate speech, intimidation, and violence remain unacceptable when the message conveyed is that 'all is fair in politics'?" That question has now been answered in the most chilling way possible.
Enter Sheikh Sani Yahaya Jingir, the influential Islamic cleric and leader of the Izala Scholars Council. In the days following Tinubu's declaration, Jingir doubled down on his support for a Muslim-Muslim presidential ticket, describing Christians as "infidels" and declaring he had "no regrets" over his remarks. He cited President Tinubu's decision to "raise the flag" of the Muslim-Muslim ticket as justification for his stance. He framed his position as a response to years of perceived marginalization, stating, "They started it; at a point, we suffered in their hands". The cleric's rhetoric was divisive, inflammatory, and a direct assault on the secular foundation of the Nigerian constitution. But where was the president's condemnation? Where was the voice of the father of the nation calling for restraint and unity?
There was only silence. And in that silence, a pass was given.
Then came Senator Francis Fadahunsi, the APC lawmaker representing Osun East Senatorial District, who took the president's philosophy and ran with it to its logical, terrifying conclusion. In a viral video, he was captured addressing his supporters in Ilesa, instructing them to "kill" members of the opposition Accord Party. His words, translated from Yoruba, were unmistakable: "From now on, whenever you see Accord members, kill them. On election day, even if they come with voter cards, we won't allow them to vote". He dared his audience to record him, a brazen act of impunity that suggests a man who believes he is beyond the reach of the law.
The video sparked outrage, but Fadahunsi's initial response was not to apologize or retract. Instead, he offered a semantic defense, claiming he meant "kill with votes" and that his words had been "misinterpreted". This is the standard playbook of the political class in Nigeria: say the most incendiary thing imaginable, and when caught on camera, retreat behind the shield of "misrepresentation." Yet the damage was done. The message had been received by his supporters, who cheered him on. And the connection to Tinubu's earlier declaration was not lost on observers.
Demola Olarenwaju, the Senior Political Assistant to ADC presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar, made the link explicit. He wrote: "Bola Tinubu's 'all is fair in politics' statement has laid the foundation for extreme actions by APC persons, with Osun as the first experiment and Fadahunsi as the first APC chieftain caught on camera acting accordingly". He called for Fadahunsi's immediate arrest and prosecution, warning that the senator's continued freedom is "confirmation of federal compromise".
The Osun State Police Command has since summoned Fadahunsi over his remarks. But the question that lingers is whether this is mere theater or a genuine attempt to uphold the rule of law. If the president's words are to be taken literally, then Fadahunsi's actions are merely the logical extension of "all is fair." If the president's words are to be taken figuratively, then the public deserves to know where the line is drawn. As Idam pointedly asked, "Should the public not give those words their ordinary and literal meaning? If so, how does that differ from the comments made by Omoyele Sowore, which became the subject of criminal proceedings?"
The pattern is now unmistakable. Tinubu's remark was not an isolated gaffe; it was a rhetorical green light that has emboldened his supporters to act with impunity. Jingir used it to justify religious bigotry. Fadahunsi used it to incite murder. And the president, by his silence, has endorsed both.
This is the danger of a leader who treats the constitution as a suggestion rather than a sacred contract. The Nigerian constitution is not a flexible document that bends to the whims of political convenience. It is the supreme law of the land, and it explicitly forbids discrimination, incitement, and violence. When the president declares that "all is fair," he is not merely expressing an opinion; he is undermining the very document he swore to uphold.
The timing of these events is particularly damning. Tinubu made his remark just weeks before the Osun State governorship election, a contest that is already fraught with tension. Fadahunsi's video surfaced days before the poll, creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. This is not coincidence; it is a strategy. The president's words created the conditions for lawlessness, and his supporters have exploited those conditions to the fullest.
What makes this even more troubling is the president's apparent detachment from the consequences of his rhetoric. When Cardinal Onaiyekan criticized the remark, he suggested that Tinubu "appears detached from the realities of Nigeria's worsening economic hardship because people around him are not telling him the truth". That detachment is now manifesting in the streets of Osun, where lives are being threatened in the name of politics.
The philosopher John Lyly first coined the sentiment that "all is fair in love and war" in 1578, but he never imagined it would be applied to the governance of a nation. In love, "all is fair" ruins relationships. In war, it breaks international treaties. But in politics, it breaks the social contract, erodes the constitution, empowers ethno-religious bigotry, and normalizes authoritarianism. The president is not a soldier or a lover; he is the sworn defender of a constitution that explicitly defines what is fair and what is not. To claim otherwise is to confess that the constitution is merely a suggestion, and that is the most dangerous precedent a sitting president can set.
Tinubu gave Jingir a pass on religious division. Fadahunsi took that pass and ran with it to the brink of murder. The president's words have now been translated into a call for violence, and his silence has been interpreted as consent. If he does not condemn Fadahunsi's remarks unequivocally and ensure that the full weight of the law is brought to bear, he will have confirmed that "all is fair" was never a proverb. It was a proclamation. And Nigeria will pay the price.
Mohammed Bello Doka can be reached via [email protected]
ANN Politics
Tags
Opi