Every election season has its familiar cast of political actors. Some wear party uniforms. Others wear clerical robes while insisting they are above politics.
Archbishop John Onaiyekan belongs squarely in the second category.
When I described him as one of the leading figures in the “Yes Daddy” consortium, I wasn’t engaging in hyperbole. I was describing a political reality backed by his own public record.
The receipts are there for anyone willing to look beyond the carefully cultivated image of neutrality.
In May 2023, while Bola Ahmed Tinubu was awaiting inauguration after being declared winner by INEC, Archbishop Onaiyekan publicly argued that swearing him in was “senseless” and “inappropriate” because election petitions were still before the courts.
Those were not the words of a detached cleric merely praying for peace. Those were the words of someone who had already taken a political position before the judiciary had spoken.
When the Supreme Court eventually affirmed Tinubu’s election, there was no corresponding public campaign questioning the authority of the apex court. The constitutional process had run its course.
Yet, three years later, the same familiar voice has resurfaced.
Different year.
Same political disposition.
Same predictable target.
That is why every fresh intervention from Archbishop Onaiyekan deserves to be viewed through the prism of his established record rather than presented as the impartial wisdom of an unbiased elder statesman.
Neutrality is not proclaimed.
It is demonstrated.
A genuinely non-partisan voice applies the same standards regardless of who occupies Aso Rock. It does not emerge primarily when one particular political tendency is involved.
This is also why President Tinubu’s response to the delegation of “Yes Daddy” clergy was so revealing. He made it abundantly clear that he would campaign vigorously and would never surrender to intimidation, moral blackmail or sanctimonious innuendos disguised as spiritual counsel.
That response was not accidental.
It reflected a leader who understood exactly who he was dealing with.
Jagaban has been in Nigerian politics long enough to distinguish genuine statesmanship from carefully packaged political activism wearing ecclesiastical garments.
The lesson is simple.
Every citizen—including every cleric—is constitutionally entitled to political opinions.
There is nothing wrong with that.
The problem begins when partisan preferences are repeatedly presented as objective moral authority.
If Archbishop Onaiyekan wishes to participate in political debates, that is entirely his democratic right.
But Nigerians should stop pretending that he speaks from some elevated platform of political neutrality.
His own public statements from 2023 remain the strongest evidence against that proposition.
The receipts speak louder than today’s denials.
And receipts, unlike revisionism, do not suffer from selective memory..
Dr. Bunmi Awoyemi is a Real Estate Developer, Builder and Public Affairs Analyst.
