Obi and the National Anthem: A Test of Leadership, Patriotism and Respect for the Law
By Matthew Eloyi
There is a difference between challenging a government and challenging the institutions of the state. There is also a difference between exercising democratic freedom and displaying disregard for the laws that hold a country together. Peter Obi, presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), appears to have blurred these important distinctions with his controversial decision to reject Nigeria’s current national anthem at a political gathering in Lagos.
In a country desperately searching for leaders capable of rebuilding public confidence in its institutions, strengthening national unity and restoring respect for the rule of law, the last thing Nigerians should expect from a presidential hopeful is a public display that could be interpreted as defiance of a constitutionally recognised national symbol.
Yet, that was precisely the impression created at the NDC town hall meeting in Lagos on Thursday, when Obi and his supporters reportedly declined to stand for the rendition of ‘Nigeria, We Hail Thee’, the national anthem currently recognised by law. Instead, the event anchor switched to the former anthem, ‘Arise, O Compatriots’, which Obi and his supporters enthusiastically recited.
The spectacle, captured in a viral video, was particularly striking. While the former anthem played, Obi reportedly faced the crowd, raising two fingers on both hands to form the NDC party symbol. It was a moment that appeared to transform a national ritual into a political statement.
But what exactly was the statement? That Nigeria’s national symbols should be subjected to political preferences? That a lawfully established national anthem deserves recognition only when political actors approve of the administration responsible for its reintroduction? Or that opposition to President Bola Tinubu should extend even to the symbols of the Nigerian state?
Whatever the intention, the optics were unfortunate, and the implications deserve serious examination.
The national anthem is not the personal property of the President. Neither does it belong to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). It is a symbol of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, representing the country’s sovereignty, identity, unity and collective aspirations. Its constitutional and legal status does not change simply because the political opposition disagrees with the administration in power.
On May 29, 2024, President Tinubu signed the National Anthem Bill into law following its passage by the National Assembly, restoring ‘Nigeria, We Hail Thee’, which was Nigeria’s anthem at independence in 1960. The legislation replaced ‘Arise, O Compatriots’, which had served the country from 1978.
The decision attracted considerable debate. Many Nigerians questioned the government’s priorities, particularly at a time of economic hardship, insecurity, unemployment and other pressing national challenges. Others expressed nostalgia for the anthem they had grown up singing.
Those arguments were legitimate. Indeed, citizens have every right to question the wisdom of government policies, demand accountability and advocate legislative changes. Obi, as a political leader and presidential candidate, is certainly entitled to his opinion on the reintroduction of the old anthem.
But there is a fundamental principle that appears to have been overlooked in the Lagos episode: disagreement with the law does not confer the right to disregard it.
A presidential candidate should know better.
The presidency is not a platform for protest
Obi is not an ordinary political commentator expressing an opinion on social media. He is a man seeking the mandate to govern more than 200 million Nigerians, preside over the Federal Executive Council, serve as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
That ambition demands a higher standard of conduct.
A presidential candidate must demonstrate that he understands the difference between his personal convictions and the responsibilities of public office. He must be prepared to respect institutions even when their decisions are inconvenient, unpopular or inconsistent with his political preferences.
The presidency is not a platform for settling political scores, staging symbolic rebellions or demonstrating displeasure with decisions taken by a predecessor or political opponent. It is an institution whose authority derives from the Constitution and whose occupant is expected to protect the integrity of the Nigerian state.
If Obi believes the reintroduction of ‘Nigeria, We Hail Thee’ was a mistake, there are legitimate ways to express that position. He could publicly articulate his objections, present a proposal for legislative reconsideration or promise to initiate a review through the appropriate constitutional channels if elected.
What he should not do is create the impression that the country’s national identity can be divided along political lines.
There is something particularly troubling about the example this sets. If a presidential aspirant can publicly reject a national symbol because he disagrees with the circumstances surrounding its adoption, what message does that send to ordinary Nigerians about their responsibility to respect national institutions?
The rule of law cannot be a buffet from which politicians select only the provisions and decisions that suit their interests.
Patriotism must rise above political affiliations
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the incident is the apparent attempt to turn the national anthem into an instrument of partisan identity.
The old anthem, ‘Arise, O Compatriots’, certainly occupies a special place in Nigeria’s history. For 46 years, it accompanied school assemblies, official ceremonies, sporting events and national celebrations. Millions of Nigerians grew up singing it, and its words remain familiar to many.
But nostalgia is not legislation.
Equally, ‘Nigeria, We Hail Thee’ is not an anthem belonging to Tinubu or the APC. It was adopted by the National Assembly through the legislative process and signed into law by the President. It is now the national anthem, irrespective of the political party that controls the government.
A responsible opposition should be able to distinguish between opposing an administration and undermining national symbols. Indeed, one of the defining responsibilities of opposition politics is to hold government accountable without weakening the institutions of the state.
Obi’s supporters may consider the refusal an expression of political freedom. But political freedom is not an excuse for every action, particularly when the individual involved is asking Nigerians to entrust him with the highest responsibility in the land.
Freedom comes with responsibility, and leadership comes with an even greater obligation to set the right example.
The danger of selective respect for the law
Nigeria’s democratic journey has suffered considerably from the culture of selective obedience to laws and institutional decisions. Politicians frequently invoke the Constitution when it serves their interests but become dismissive when its provisions or decisions do not align with their political calculations.
This culture must not be encouraged.
The Constitution is not an instrument of convenience. It is the supreme legal framework governing the country, and every political office seeker must demonstrate a commitment to its supremacy.
It is important, however, to distinguish between the National Anthem Act, which establishes the current anthem, and the Constitution itself. The anthem’s statutory status does not mean that refusing to sing it automatically amounts to a constitutional offence. Nevertheless, a presidential candidate’s public conduct in relation to a national symbol established by law raises legitimate questions about his attitude towards legal authority and institutional respect.
The issue, therefore, goes beyond the technical question of whether Obi or his supporters can be compelled to sing a particular song. It is about the judgment, political maturity and national responsibility expected of someone aspiring to lead a constitutional democracy.
A leader must understand that not every disagreement needs to become a public confrontation. Sometimes, maturity means respecting an established national arrangement while pursuing its review through lawful democratic processes.
Nigeria deserves more than political symbolism
The circumstances surrounding the Lagos town hall meeting also deserve attention. The event had reportedly been disrupted earlier by hoodlums armed with cutlasses, cudgels and stones, forcing participants to flee for safety.
At a time when political violence continues to threaten democratic participation, Nigerians expected political leaders to focus on condemning the attack, promoting peaceful political engagement and discussing the pressing challenges confronting the country.
Instead, the anthem controversy has become another distraction.
Nigeria has far more consequential issues demanding the attention of its presidential candidates: a struggling economy, rising living costs, unemployment, insecurity, inadequate infrastructure, poor healthcare and an education system in need of urgent reform.
Nigerians want to know how candidates intend to create jobs, improve electricity supply, strengthen security, attract investment and make governance more accountable. They want practical solutions, not political theatre.
The symbolism of raising the NDC party sign while the former national anthem played may have generated excitement among party loyalists, but it did little to answer the fundamental questions about Obi’s readiness to lead a country as complex and diverse as Nigeria.
A presidential candidate should be judged by the depth of his ideas, the quality of his leadership judgment and his commitment to national interests, not merely by the applause he generates at political gatherings.
A test of leadership Obi should not ignore
There is a reason national symbols are treated with particular significance in countries around the world. They represent something bigger than the individuals temporarily occupying political offices. Governments come and go, political parties rise and fall, and presidents complete their tenures. The nation, however, endures.
That is why national symbols should be treated as instruments of unity rather than weapons of political disagreement.
Obi has built much of his political appeal around the promise of a different approach to governance, accountability, prudence and institutional responsibility. His supporters frequently present him as an alternative to the traditional political establishment. Such a reputation, however, comes with an obligation to demonstrate consistency between political promises and public conduct.
One cannot convincingly campaign for a new political culture while appearing to endorse conduct that weakens respect for established national institutions.
If elected, Obi would inherit the same Constitution, National Assembly, judiciary, national flag and other symbols of statehood that exist today. He would be expected to protect them, not subject them to the approval of his political supporters.
This is why the Lagos incident should not be dismissed as an inconsequential anthem controversy. It presents an opportunity to examine the character of leadership Nigeria needs at this critical moment.
A presidential candidate must be capable of disagreeing without being dismissive, protesting without undermining national unity and challenging government decisions without appearing to undermine the authority of the state.
Obi owes Nigerians an explanation for the message his conduct conveyed. He must also recognise that the privilege of seeking the presidency comes with responsibilities that extend far beyond satisfying the sentiments of party loyalists.
Ultimately, the national anthem should be bigger than Obi, bigger than Tinubu and bigger than the NDC or APC. It belongs to Nigeria.
The old anthem may be cherished, the new one may be debated, and the government that restored it may be criticised. But the country’s national symbols should never become casualties of partisan rivalry.
Nigeria does not need presidential candidates who demonstrate patriotism only when the political circumstances are convenient. It needs leaders who understand that respect for the nation must transcend personal preferences, political disagreements and party loyalty.
The question Obi must answer is simple: If he seeks the mandate to lead Nigeria, why should Nigerians not expect him to demonstrate respect for the laws and national institutions he would be constitutionally required to protect?