For generations, the definition of family has been rigidly tethered to biology. We have been taught that the shared sequence of DNA, a common surname, and generational roots are the ultimate arbiters of loyalty, belonging, and connection. However, human experience continuously proves that while biology explains our origins, it does not dictate our destination or define our capacity to tow distinct and unique paths which are unconnected to our bloodlines. Personal decision is forged not in the lab of genetics, but in the crucible of personal choice. Moving beyond bloodlines means recognizing that family is an action, identity is self-authored, and the strongest legacies are built on personal choices rather than lineage.
In Nigerian politics, the family unit has long been treated as a monolithic voting bloc, where the alignments of prominent patriarchs historically dictated the loyalties of their entire households. This deeply entrenched culture of neo-patrimonialism has recently been challenged ahead of the upcoming 2027 general elections. The decisions of Abba Atiku Abubakar (son of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar) and Olujuwon Obasanjo (son of former President Olusegun Obasanjo) to formally join and actively campaign for the re-election bid of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu have sparked intense national discourse. By stepping away from their fathers’ political shadows,where Atiku operates as a major opposition leader and Obasanjo remains a fierce critic of the current administration,these actions bring to the forefront the constitutional guarantee of individual legal freedom of choice, offering a profound indicator of Nigeria’s evolving electoral maturity.
At the heart of any true constitutional democracy lies the unassailable right of the individual to think, believe, and associate freely, a principle that operates independently of domestic ties. In Nigeria, this is an enforceable fundamental right guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). Specifically, Section 38(1) guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and opinion, while Section 40 explicitly protects the right to free association, ensuring that any citizen can freely join or align with any political party of their choice. Legally and constitutionally, reaching the age of majority strips away any presumption of hereditary political custody. A son or daughter is a distinct legal entity with independent civic obligations and rights. When individuals like Abba Atiku or Olujuwon Obasanjo break ranks with their families, they are executing the exact constitutional liberties that underwrite the democratic social contract. It affirms the jurisprudence that a ballot paper is an individual property and an exercise of personal franchise, not a transferable ancestral asset.
This assertion is anchored firmly upon clear judicial precedents where the Nigerian judiciary has consistently defended individual autonomy against forced collective associations. In the landmark case of INEC v. Balarabe Musa & Ors (2003), the Supreme Court struck down restrictive guidelines that sought to limit political participation, underscoring that Section 40 allows every person the freedom to associate for the protection of their interests without exemptions for individual status. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Emeka v. Okoroafor & Ors (2017) reinforced that the right under Section 40 works both ways.” The others you want to associate with must be prepared to associate with you” It also connotes the right of others to also dissociate with you! Earlier, in Agbai v. Okogbue (1991), the apex court affirmed constitutional supremacy over customary expectations, ruling that forcing automatic membership into an association based on traditional or communal groupings violates individual constitutional freedom.“… nobody can be made to associate with other persons against his will”
Applied to the contemporary political landscape, the precedents referenced here establish that neither patriarchal status nor family lineage can legally bind an individual’s franchise to a specific political banner.
This constitutional liberty is operationalised and strictly regulated by the statutory provisions of the Electoral Act.
Membership of a political party,under section 77, is transformed from a fluid social loyalty into a strict statutory question. The Act mandates that every registered political party must maintain a digital membership register and submit it to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) ahead of party primaries. By law, only individuals whose names are duly captured on this submitted register are legally recognized as party members,who can vote and be voted for. This mechanism strips political patriarchs of any customary veto power over their household’s political affiliations, as party registration is codified as an individual, biometric, and legally binding transaction between the independent citizen and the state’s electoral umpire.
From a strict constitutional standpoint therefore, the validity of these actions must be assessed through the lens of legal capacity and the supremacy of the grundnorm. Under Section 1(1) and 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution, the Constitution is supreme, and any custom, familial expectation, or political convention that contradicts its provisions is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency. Therefore, the familial ties binding Abba Atiku and Olujuwon Obasanjo to their respective fathers are legally subordinated to their autonomous status as adult citizens with full legal capacity and its attendant rights. The law recognises no political inheritance or proxy voting by household heads. Consequently, their choices do not represent a legal injury to their families, but rather the lawful execution of their civic duties under Section 24 of the Constitution.
Strict adherence to constitutional boundaries over filial obligations serves as a critical indicator of electoral maturity, affirming that the modern state operates on codified citizen-state relations rather than feudal hierarchies.
Ultimately, the independent political choices of Abba Atiku Abubakar and Olujuwon Obasanjo represent an important milestone in Nigeria’s democratic journey. The symbolism remains profoundly transformative for the electorate and a robust example of the development our political space. It visually demonstrates that the legal freedom of choice is absolute, that constitutional rights supersede patriarchal expectations, and that the era of blind, hereditary political allegiance is fast drawing to a close. As Nigeria marches toward future general elections, this fracturing of elite political monoliths provides everyday citizens with a vital lesson in democratic agency: that the power of choice belongs strictly to the individual, unbound by history, tribe, or bloodlines.
Asiwaju Kunle Kalejaye SAN Eagle102.5 FM Ilese-Ijebu
