Governance In Nigeria And The Burden Of “E No Do Anything”

In Nigeria, power attracts worship. While leaders occupy office, praise singers crowd the corridors of power. Achievements are exaggerated, failures are rationalized, and silence is purchased with access.

By Kelvin Uwaibi

There is a recurring pattern in Nigerian public life that deserves sober reflection, not applause or outrage. It is the ritual of praise while in office and condemnation after exit. Today’s hero becomes tomorrow’s villain, often at the hands of the same voices that once sang their praises. This cycle is unhealthy, dishonest, and deeply corrosive to governance.

In Nigeria, power attracts worship. While leaders occupy office, praise singers crowd the corridors of power. Achievements are exaggerated, failures are rationalized, and silence is purchased with access.

But the moment an administration ends, the script flips. The same actors migrate seamlessly to the next government, armed with fresh narratives about how the previous one “did nothing.” The phrase “E no do anything” has become our most recycled political judgment.

This is not accountability. It is opportunism.

The Moral Contradiction

There is a biblical moment that comes to mind. When Jesus confronted those eager to condemn, He said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” One by one, they walked away. The lesson was not the absence of wrongdoing, but the danger of hypocritical judgment.

In Nigeria, we do the opposite. Those who were present, complicit, silent, or even beneficiaries suddenly become moral prosecutors. They cast stones with enthusiasm, absolving themselves of any responsibility for the systems they once defended or enabled.

This is why the condemnation often feels hollow. It is rarely driven by evidence, institutional review, or measurable benchmarks. It is driven by proximity to new power.

The Human Cost of Political Betrayal

Presidents, Governors, Ministers, Commissioners, and Local Government Chairmen often become the most visible victims of this cycle. Regardless of performance, context, or structural constraints, they are reduced to caricatures once power moves on.

I genuinely empathize when I observe this treachery. Not because leaders are saints, but because betrayal at this scale is brutal. It erases nuance. It ignores institutional limits. It absolves collaborators. And it creates a political culture where responsibility is personalized at the top while collective failure is conveniently forgotten.

Governance, under such conditions, becomes lonely, defensive, and risk-averse. Leaders begin to govern for survival rather than reform.

Why This Culture Is Dangerous

It discourages long-term thinking.

Why invest in reforms whose benefits will mature after you leave, when you know you will be disowned anyway?

It weakens institutional memory.

Each new government pretends to start from zero, demonizing the past instead of learning from it.

It rewards sycophancy, not competence.

Those who thrive are not builders of systems, but masters of alignment.

It destroys trust in governance.

Citizens are conditioned to believe no government ever performs, making civic engagement cynical and shallow.

It prevents honest accountability.

Real accountability requires continuity, data, and shared ownership, not selective amnesia.

 A Simple but Uncomfortable Question

Show me one administration in Nigeria that was not praised while in office and criticized after leaving.

Federal or state. Civilian or military. Reformist or populist. The pattern holds. This alone should tell us the problem is not only leadership. It is political culture.

 What Should Be Done

First, we must separate governance evaluation from political alignment. Performance should be assessed using clear metrics, not access to power.

Second, those who served within administrations must own their role rather than reinvent themselves as external critics overnight. If you were inside the room, you share responsibility.

Third, citizens and civil society must demand evidence-based assessments, not slogans. “E no do anything” is not analysis.

Fourth, institutions must be strengthened to outlive administrations. When systems work, leadership transitions become less dramatic and less personal.

Finally, principle must matter again. Democracy without principle becomes theatre. Governance without integrity becomes survival politics.

Until we learn to praise responsibly, criticize fairly, and remember consistently, governance will remain trapped in a cycle of noise rather than progress. Leaders will come and go. The damage of dishonesty will remain.

A nation that eats its own past every four years cannot build a future.