By Sylvester Udemezue

MEMORY VERSE:

A loyal supporter is a loyal supporter, whether or not he wears his master’s customised cap. True loyalty cannot be measured by outward symbols.

INTRODUCTION

Governor Monday Okpebholo of Edo State recently issued a directive requiring all Commissioners and members of the State Executive Council to wear President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s signature “Asiwaju cap” at every Executive Council meeting. According to TheNigeriaLawyer report of 15 October 2025, the Governor declared: “I will not forgive any commissioner that is not wearing this cap. In our Exco meetings, if you are not wearing a suit and you are coming to the meeting without this Asiwaju cap, you will go back.” [TheNigeriaLawyer, 14 October 2025].

While the Governor likely intended this as a symbolic gesture of political loyalty, the directive raises serious constitutional and governance concerns. It invites scrutiny under the principles of constitutional supremacy, fundamental rights, administrative rationality, political neutrality, and the dignity of the human person. Key questions include:

1. Can a Governor lawfully compel state officials to display a partisan symbol as a condition for participating in official meetings?

2. Does the directive align with constitutional principles protecting freedom of thought, conscience, and expression?

3. What are the administrative and ethical implications of subordinating official functions to political symbolism?

This analysis examines these issues within the frameworks of Nigerian constitutional law, human rights jurisprudence, and public administration ethics.

CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, is the supreme law of the land (Sections 1(1) and 1(3)). All exercises of governmental authority must conform to its guarantees of liberty, dignity, and due process. Any directive inconsistent with these principles is void. Even a well-intentioned instruction from a Governor cannot override fundamental rights or transform public offices into platforms for partisan display. Executive power is not personal; it is held in trust for the public and exercised within the bounds of law.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: EXPRESSION, CONSCIENCE, AND HUMAN DIGNITY

Section 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 guarantees freedom of expression, including symbolic acts and personal choices. The Supreme Court in Arthur Nwankwo v. The State (1985) affirmed that expression encompasses any means by which a person may communicate his thoughts or opinions. Compelling Commissioners to wear a partisan emblem constitutes compelled expression, violating both the spirit and letter of Section 39. Freedom of expression includes the right to refrain from displaying beliefs one does not hold.

Section 45(1) permits restrictions on rights only if “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.” The Governor’s directive lacks statutory basis, does not serve a legitimate public purpose, and fails tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Political loyalty cannot justify ideological coercion.

Section 38(1) dealing with Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion, protects the right not to profess or manifest beliefs contrary to one’s convictions. Forcing public officials to outwardly identify with a political figure through attire infringes moral and intellectual autonomy, violating this constitutionally protected sphere of conscience.

Section 34(1) guaranteeing Dignity of the Human Person, affirms that every individual is entitled to dignity. Mandating Commissioners to wear a political emblem demeans their independence, undermines neutrality, and erodes respect for the rule of law. As Justice Oputa observed in Fawehinmi v. Nigerian Bar Association (No. 2) (1989), dignity is the right of every man to be treated as an end, never merely as a means. The directive by Governor Okpebolo is an impermissible form of ideological compulsion inconsistent with Nigeria’s constitutional protections.

ADMINISTRATIVE AND ETHICAL DIMENSIONS

1. Rationality in Administrative Action

Administrative law requires that executive directives have a rational and lawful basis. Under the Wednesbury principle (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948], an action is unreasonable if no reasonable authority would impose it. Nigerian courts, including Governor of Ekiti State v. Olayemi (2012), reaffirm that executive decisions must connect rationally to legitimate governmental purposes. Requiring Commissioners to wear a partisan cap lacks rational nexus to governance or service delivery. It converts Executive Council meetings into a stage for political display, diverting attention from policymaking and administrative efficiency.

2. Political Neutrality of Public Officers

Public officers must maintain political neutrality (Paragraph 10, Part I, Fifth Schedule, Constitution). Even gubernatorial appointees are constitutional officeholders, not personal aides. Mandating partisan symbols conflates governance with political loyalty, undermining institutional impartiality and public confidence.

SYMBOLISM, LOYALTY, AND GOVERNANCE PRIORITIES

Loyalty in public service is demonstrated through competence, diligence, and integrity; not attire. True commitment to governance is measured by performance, policy contribution, and adherence to constitutional values. Mandating partisan dress trivializes governance, fosters political theatrics, and risks subordinating public interest to personal or political symbolism. The State Executive Council, established under Sections 192–196 of the Constitution, is a constitutional organ for policy advice, not a campaign platform. Administrative forums should reflect neutrality, discipline, and focus on governance priorities.

SHOWMANSHIP

This episode transcends wardrobe choices. It underscores the perennial tension between political theatre and institutional substance.When leadership becomes performative, governance loses direction. Edo State needs a government adorned not in partisan caps but in accountability, transparency, and development-focused policies. As democratic practice matures, symbols should serve the State, not substitute for service.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND JURISPRUDENTIAL PERSPECTIVE

Nigerian courts emphasize that executive discretion must not become arbitrary. In Egwumuo v. State (1992), administrative acts must respect legality and reason. Military Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) confirms that no authority is above the law. Mandating partisan attire without statutory authority infringes constitutional rights, coerces ideological conformity, and undermines officeholder dignity. While encouragement of loyalty is permissible, compulsion is unconstitutional.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Governor Okpebholo’s directive raises significant constitutional, ethical, and governance concerns:

1. It infringes rights to freedom of conscience, expression, and human dignity (Sections 38, 39, 34).

2. It violates principles of administrative rationality and political neutrality.

3. It undermines the purpose of governance institutions by converting official forums into platforms for political symbolism.

4. It conflicts with Nigeria’s obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Articles 5, 9, 10).

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The directive should be rescinded. Commissioners should dress formally in line with civil service norms. Loyalty and cooperation should be measured by performance, integrity, and service, not outward displays of political allegiance. Executive Council meetings should prioritize policy, governance, and development over symbolic gestures. Civil society, legal scholars, and educators should promote awareness of constitutionalism, administrative propriety, and the limits of executive power.

Respectfully,

Sylvester Udemezue (udems),

Proctor, The Reality Ministry of Truth Law and Justice (TRM).

08021365545.

udems@therealityministry.ngo.

(15 October 2025)