Photo Credit – Mahalia Way | Pinterest
By: Sonaike Peter
“Politics is a dirty game,” they say. But in truth, politics is not inherently dirty. It is people who stain it. From global systems to student communities, politics becomes tainted when driven by selfish interests, blind loyalty, and overfamiliarity.
At the University of Ibadan, this reality persists. Winning a student election, especially the coveted position of Students’ Union President, is seldom based on merit, even though it demands the qualifications annually outlined by the Deputy Registrar on behalf of the University management. Winning often hinges on the unwavering support of a candidate’s hall of residence, faculty, religious fellowship, or other student groups. These groups mobilize, not necessarily because the candidate is the most competent, but because they are “one of us.” They campaign boldly, pool resources, and in many cases, even cover the financial costs of the campaign.
However, this loyalty has a price. Sometimes it stems from genuine belief in the candidate’s potential, but often it is transactional, offered in anticipation of political returns like preferential treatment, accommodation allotment, or other exclusive opportunities. When those expectations are unmet, disappointment follows. You will hear things like, “After all I did for this hall, is this what I deserve?”
This same brand of politics mirrors what we see nationally, where support is rooted in ethnicity and religion rather than ideology or competence. Appointments and favoritism are based on loyalty, even at the expense of national well-being. On campus, this model stifles truth and undermines the collective interest of the student body.
Consider Covenant Odedele who cannot recount his journey to the Students’ Union Presidency without acknowledging the critical roles played by the Great Independence and Alexander Brown Halls. These halls were instrumental to his victory in the 2025 elections. But now that “their son” holds the Kunle Adepeju office, these political faithful have gone quiet. They no longer speak out or critically engage the administration, even as pressing student issues, like the cancellation of an approved congress and the President’s reluctance to mobilize students, go unresolved. Most criticism, by students, was swiftly dismissed by some Indy residents as an attack on “one of their own.”
Yet this is not exclusive to Independence Hall. Let us recall Host’s administration. There is no public record of Zikites demanding his resignation despite his failure to address fee hikes and other student concerns. His tenure set a precedent for many of the recent failings of the Students’ Union. Even when he tampered with congress resolutions, his hall stood by him. Contrast that with the case of Aweda, who was almost talked into resigning after misrepresenting students during the fee hike protests. This double standard reflects the same hypocrisy that cripples Nigeria’s political system, where merit is overshadowed by ethnicity, religion, and regionalism.
Should we excuse incompetence because the President, Speaker, or another executive is from our hall, class, or fellowship? Should we stand by while students suffer, simply because those in power once knocked on our doors begging for votes?
The student community must rise above sentiment and hold leaders accountable. Other student bodies around the world have shown us what is possible. In several Philippine universities, students pressured their leaders to explain failures like unfulfilled promises of better Wi-Fi or mental health support or step down. At Yale University, student leaders involved in misconduct were suspended after peers protested and petitioned. During South Africa’s #FeesMustFall protests, student leaders were called out when they became too cozy with university authorities. Their peers didn’t stay silent, they demanded accountability and a return to the struggle’s original goals.
These examples teach us something critical. Leadership must never be above scrutiny. Change only happens when students actively engage with their union, not as loyalists, but as members of a shared community.
Yes, hall, class, and fellowship identities have their place. But never at the expense of truth, justice, and collective progress. The true test of leadership is not how loudly people cheer when you rise, but how firmly they hold you to account when you falter.
Residents of Indy, Tedder, Zik, Bello, and others must realize that student leaders are no longer hall loyalists. They are representatives of a diverse student body and not a select few. With elections over, focus must shift to ensuring that student leaders serve the best interest of students. We must speak truth to power, even when that power comes from our own corridor.
