In the laboratory of Nigerian politics, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has perfected a unique experiment: the systematic absorption of his loudest enemies. It is a reward system that defies traditional ideological growth.
In this ecosystem, if you once exposed him, insulted his heritage, or questioned his credibility on national television, you are not cast out. On the contrary, you are considered more valuable inside the tent than outside it.
The pattern is too consistent to be a coincidence. It is a calculated strategy of political containment.
*The Hall of Reversal: Yesterday’s Critics, Today’s Gatekeepers*
The list of those who have traded their “activist” credentials for a seat at the table is both long and illustrious. Each name follows a familiar trajectory: fierce opposition, a period of loud scrutiny, followed by a sudden, lucrative “damascus road” experience.
*Festus Keyamo*: Once a lawyer who publicly questioned Tinubu’s certificates and transparency, he has undergone a total transformation. Today, he doesn’t just defend the President; he aggressively attacks anyone who raises the very same questions he once popularized.
*Femi Fani-Kayode* (FFK): He once described Tinubu’s political structure as a “criminal enterprise” and “state capture.” After years of labeling the President with terms like “godfatherism” and “corruption,” FFK now markets him as Nigeria’s indispensable savior.
*Reno Omokri*: A man who built a digital brand on the Chicago controversies and Tinubu’s morality. Today, the fire has cooled, the memory of his own past tweets has faded, and his sharp-edged criticism has been carefully redirected toward other targets.
*Daniel Bwala*: A former opposition spokesperson who declared Tinubu “unfit for office” and attacked his health and integrity on every major news network. Today, he serves as a Special Adviser, defending the record he once described as disqualifying.
*Nyesom Wike*: The “fearless” critic who accused Tinubu of hijacking party structures and running a one-man empire. That empire is now conveniently rebranded as “political capacity” and “leadership experience.”
*Bosun Tijani*: Perhaps the most modern example. Despite his history of online activism and harsh tweets against the President and the National Assembly, Tinubu himself admitted to appointing him because of that passion. It was a clear message: the loudest voices are the ones worth buying into the system.
*Neutralization Over Forgiveness*
To the casual observer, this looks like maturity or “inclusive governance.” To the astute political scientist, it looks like a settlement. When a critic is absorbed, several things happen simultaneously:
The Critic is Silenced: They cannot attack the hand that feeds them.
The Message is Diluted: When the most articulate accuser becomes a defender, the public begins to doubt the validity of the original accusation.
Accountability is Traded: Yesterday’s questions are not answered; they are buried under the weight of new appointments.
*The Cost of Political Settlement*
This “Containment Policy” carries a heavy price for Nigerian democracy. It suggests that the most effective way to get a job in the Presidency is not through a consistent track record of service, but through the loudest possible exposure of the leader’s flaws. It creates a cycle where exposure is rewarded and silence is bought.
The most insulting part of this transformation is the “convert’s zeal.” These new defenders do not just support the President; they insult the Nigerian public for asking the exact same questions they themselves were asking only months ago.
*Conclusion*: Maturity or Manipulation?
This is not ideological growth. It is a political marketplace where principles are the currency and access is the prize. By turning his accusers into his mouthpieces, Tinubu ensures that his past is never truly reckoned with—it is simply managed by those who know it best.
In this system, dissent is not a threat; it is an invoice for a future appointment.
