Editorial: Fidelity To Principles
……… Interpreting Loyalty
Long before our current season of twists, turns, and tales of the unexpected, Nigeria has grappled with the meaning and limits of “loyalty” within its political framework. The question is neither new nor incidental; rather, it sits at the very heart of the country’s political evolution and recurring instability.
Nigeria’s political history is, to a considerable extent, shaped by debates and disputes over how loyalty is interpreted and to whom or what it should be owed. Notable examples include Dr. K. O. Mbadiwe’s break with Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe in the 1950s, as well as the personal and ideological rift within the Action Group that culminated in the declaration of a State of Emergency in the Western Region in 1962. That crisis set off a chain of events that tragically culminated in the January 15, 1966 coup d’état. These episodes illustrate that loyalty, when misunderstood or weaponised, can become a destabilising force rather than a unifying one.
By its very nature, politics mirrors the complexity of human existence. Consequently, the question of loyalty and the often contrived definition of “disloyalty” reappears with predictable regularity. Former Lagos State Governor Babatunde Fashola once captured this dilemma poignantly when he remarked, “May our loyalty never be tested.” It was an acknowledgment of the moral and political minefield that loyalty can become when it is detached from principle.
It is against this backdrop that the recent assertion by a former governor of Osun State, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, deserves careful attention. Speaking at a public gathering, he declared: “Where I come from, loyalty is to a cause, not to personalities.” This is an important clarification, particularly within the context of a political system largely stripped of ideological depth. While the 1962 Action Group crisis was deeply flawed, it nonetheless had a discernible ideological foundation. Today, such clarity is often absent, leaving loyalty vulnerable to manipulation by transient interests and entrenched godfatherism.
Aregbesola’s position is fundamentally sound. The bedrock of politics ought to be fidelity to philosophy, constitutionalism, and the common good not blind attachment to individuals. Loyalty anchored in ideology and principle is what enables societies to make forward progress, elevate standards of governance, and improve the wellbeing of all strata of society, especially the most vulnerable. Without this grounding, politics becomes little more than a contest of personalities, devoid of purpose or direction.
Politics without programmes cannot develop a society. There must be a coherent set of principles translated into actionable programmes of development. When the Action Group in the early 1950s produced its manifesto centred on making “life more abundant,” it was anchored in a clearly articulated ideological vision. The impact was transformative, setting in motion policies and institutions that reshaped education, social welfare, and governance in ways that remain influential to this day. The lesson is clear: manifestos and ideological positions must not only be developed but continually refined to respond to changing societal needs.
Aregbesola’s own tenure as a two-term governor of Osun State reflects this principle-driven approach. His adoption of a social democratic framework informed wide-ranging interventions across education, infrastructure, social protection, and governance reforms. These achievements endure despite attempts at revisionist distortions of historical sequence. The emphasis was consistently on people-centred governance, placing collective advancement above personal political comfort.
Crucially, loyalty to principles also provides a moral compass during moments of political tension and transition. When leaders and followers alike understand that allegiance is owed to ideas rather than individuals, dissent becomes constructive rather than destructive. It allows for internal debate, reform, and renewal without descending into factionalism or betrayal narratives that have so often weakened Nigeria’s political parties and institutions.
In the final analysis, the challenge before Nigeria is not merely to demand loyalty, but to redefine it. A political culture that rewards fidelity to causes justice, equity, development, and democratic values will naturally marginalise godfatherism and personal rule. Loyalty must ultimately serve a higher purpose: the elevation of the common good and the steady progress of society. Loyalty, in its truest sense, must always be to a cause.
