In my earlier piece, “No to Tinubu Must Stay or Tinubu Must Go,” I argued that whether it comes from low places or high places, cloaked as sacred calling, the deployment of strongmanship to suppress dissent is not democratic passion but incitement. It elevates personal desire to moral ideal that others must accept without choice.
The problem with so-and-so must go is compulsion. It does not recognize the right of others or the legitimacy of process. It is not different in tone from calling for a coup, and it inevitably births its twin: so-and-so must stay at all cost. Both are against civility. Does it mean elections are no longer necessary?
Legality and legitimacy must be separated. Legally, must go is not treason. Nigerian courts have held that advocating that a leader must go through the ballot is protected speech. Arresting citizens for a slogan violates democratic culture and contradicts the history of the ruling party itself which rose through protest.
But there is also a communication problem. Robert Entman’s framing theory shows that to frame a contest as must go is to delegitimize the opponent’s right to contest. To frame it as must stay or no vacancy is to delegitimize the challenger’s right to compete.
Both remove choice. Democracy is not you must go or you must stay; it is you may be voted out or you may win if voters choose you. Henri Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory explains the affective polarization that follows: when you chant must go or must stay, you attack personhood, not policy, and supporters read it as attack on group honour.
Must go is also ambiguous on what scholars call the incitement ladder. Does it mean go through the ballot in 2027 or go now through the street? In a fragile state, security agencies interpret it with worst-case lens, as Borno police did. Political psychology research shows imperative slogans activate anger more than hope, making reconciliation harder.
Yet while we condemn this in low, informal circles, there is no greater aberration than seeing it institutionalized in the sacred chamber of the Senate.
TheCable of 15th October 2026 reported: “No vacancy: senators endorse Akpabio for 11th assembly senate presidency.” Some senators, led by Chief Whip Tahir Monguno and Senator Cyril Fasuyi, declared that the senate presidency in the next assembly, which is yet to be constituted, is not open to contest and is already occupied by Godswill Akpabio. Akpabio put it to voice vote. Ayes resounded. When he asked for nays, the chamber was silent. “They are not here. I think that settles it,” he said.
It is insensitive, premature and coercive. Endorsing a governor who retains his seat until election is different from endorsing a Senate President for an Assembly not yet elected. Every senator, returning or incoming, has equal right to contest leadership at inauguration. No one should be so powerful that he cannot humble himself to face that verdict.
If Akpabio is confident of returning, why the haste? Why the impatience? Is the office so lucrative and addictive that survival depends on it? Why is everyone now more desperate to retain power than to first win it?
We cannot condemn must go in low places and enthrone must stay in high places. That is impunity as sacred cow, and inequality before the law.
*Bagudu Mohammed* is the founder of Alternative Perspectives, a widely read commentary platform on social media, and writes a weekly newspaper column published every Monday on the back page of Peoples Daily.
