Arẹmọ Sẹhinde Ilẹgbusi
A ventriloquist is a performer who speaks through a puppet, creating the impression that the puppet has a voice of its own when, in reality, it merely echoes the wishes of its master. In political discourse, the metaphor is often employed to describe a situation in which supposedly independent institutions appear to act in concert with the desires of a dominant political figure. It is in this context that many critics have likened President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to a political ventriloquist, arguing that the judiciary and legislature increasingly resemble institutions that speak with the voice of the executive rather than exercising their constitutionally guaranteed independence.
The concern stems not merely from the constitutional powers vested in the presidency but from the perceived pattern of institutional behaviour since the current administration came into office. Critics point to the speed with which politically sensitive cases that favour the ruling party are heard and determined. In a judicial system notorious for delays, adjournments, and prolonged litigation, the rapid resolution of certain cases has raised questions about whether justice is being administered evenly. While efficiency in the administration of justice is desirable, the selective appearance of urgency in matters with significant political implications has fueled suspicions that some litigants enjoy privileged access to judicial attention.
The issue is not necessarily whether judgments are legally sound. Rather, it is whether the judiciary has created an impression of impartiality and fairness. Justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done. When cases affecting the fortunes of the ruling party are concluded with remarkable speed while countless other matters languish in the courts, public confidence in judicial neutrality inevitably suffers.
The legislature has not escaped similar criticism. In theory, the National Assembly exists as a coequal arm of government, tasked with scrutinising executive actions, debating policies, and providing effective oversight. However, critics contend that the legislature has increasingly functioned as an extension of the executive branch. Bills and policy proposals emanating from the presidency often receive swift approval, while rigorous debate and critical examination appear limited. Instead of serving as a check on executive authority, the legislature is frequently perceived as facilitating executive objectives with minimal resistance.
This perception has serious implications for democratic governance. The doctrine of separation of powers rests on the assumption that each branch of government will act independently and provide a counterweight to the others. When the legislature is seen as accommodating the executive at every turn, citizens may begin to question whether meaningful institutional checks and balances still exist.
Perhaps the greatest source of concern among critics is the cumulative effect of judicial and legislative actions on Nigeria’s opposition parties. Through a combination of court rulings, defections, and political realignments, opposition parties have suffered significant setbacks. While each development may have a legal or political justification when considered in isolation, critics argue that the overall pattern has weakened democratic competition and concentrated power in the hands of the ruling party.
A healthy democracy depends upon the existence of a viable opposition capable of challenging government policies, presenting alternative visions, and holding those in power accountable. When opposition parties are repeatedly weakened through legal and political processes that appear to favour the governing party, fears naturally arise that the country is drifting toward a de facto one-party state. Such fears may be exaggerated, but they cannot be dismissed outright in a democracy that values pluralism and political competition.
Many critics further argue that the judiciary’s strict and technical interpretation of the law has sometimes produced outcomes that are legally defensible yet politically and socially troubling. This brings to mind the famous expression, “the law is an ass,” a phrase used to criticise legal decisions that adhere rigidly to the letter of the law while disregarding common sense, public expectations, or broader considerations of justice.
The courts have a duty to interpret the law as written, not according to public sentiment. Yet judges also operate within a social and democratic context where public confidence in the legal system is indispensable. When legal reasoning appears detached from the realities and sensitivities of the society it serves, citizens may perceive the law as an instrument of power rather than a mechanism for justice. In such circumstances, the judiciary risks undermining its own legitimacy.
The challenge facing Nigeria today is therefore not simply a legal or political one. It is fundamentally a question of public trust. The judiciary must demonstrate beyond doubt that it is independent. The legislature must prove that it is more than a rubber stamp. And the executive must govern in a manner that reassures citizens that democratic institutions are not being subordinated to partisan interests.
Whether President Tinubu truly functions as the political ventriloquist his critics describe remains a matter of opinion. What is beyond dispute, however, is that the growing perception of executive dominance over the judiciary and legislature poses a serious challenge to public confidence in Nigeria’s democratic institutions. In a democracy, perception can be almost as consequential as reality. Unless these concerns are addressed through visible institutional independence and robust accountability, the metaphor of the ventriloquist may continue to resonate with an increasingly sceptical public.
