A new political campaign culture is creeping over Nigeria?s electoral process. It is the increasing weaponization of the real and perceived transgressions of fully independent, grown children of politicians as a basis to undermine the moral standing of the politicians. And this cuts across the familiar political divides.

Chatter over the politically motivated demonisation of the children of prominent politicians resurfaced this week after photos of Peter Obi?s son, Oseloka Obi, with his alleged gay partner were circulated on social media.

In an August 20 statement, Obi?s spokesperson, Valentine Obienyem, dismissed the photos as ?fake? and described the accompanying claims as ?false.?

However, Oseloka?s own statement on August 21 appeared, at least in part, to contradict Obienyem?s dismissal. ?The truth is simple: Peter Obi?s son appears in photos with his friends and colleagues, nothing more,? Oseloka said, acknowledging that the photos were indeed his. ?If people wish to invent otherwise, I hope they sleep soundly knowing they are spreading lies.?

He said he is a filmmaker who portrays a diverse cast of characters representing races, genders, and s3xual orientation different from his. In other words, although the photos are authentic, they were taken in the course of his filmic work where he played roles portraying gay characters.

However, although Oseloka is the focus of outsized attention now, the unfair searchlight on his s3xuality was provoked by an equally false and malicious attack on the sexuality of a fictitious son (or, in some posts, sons) of Bayo Onanuga, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu?s spokesperson.

Some Nigerian social media users alleged that Onanuga had a son by the name of Adekunle Onanuga who was a gay drug addict in the US. But an April 3 fact-check by a news site revealed that Onanugu does not even have a son.

?The Onanugas have only one child, a daughter named Tobiloba, who got married at the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG), City of David, Trinity Towers, Victoria Island, in December 2024,? it said.

I had called attention to this dangerous trend in a July 4, 2022, social media post titled ?Peter Obi: Visiting the ?Sin? of the Son on the Father? after an earlier widely shared social media post of Oseloka?s alleged photo draped with the colors of the defunct Biafran flag while stepping on the Nigerian flag emerged and became grist in the mill of Peter Obi?s political opponents.

?But even if he were Obi?s son (he isn?t), is it fair to hold Obi responsible for the opinions and choices of his adult son who is at least 30 years old?? I wrote.

The same is true of Obi?s political opponents, such as Bayo Onanuga (even though it has turned out he isn?t even the father of the man he was said to be the father of).

Adult children, unlike minors, act on their own accord, which makes any fallout their responsibility, not their politician parent?s. There are countless examples of scandal-prone children of otherwise decent people.

As I asked in the 2022 post regarding the false accusation against Obi?s son, are pastors or imams to blame if their grown children become atheists? Should atheist parents be held accountable when their children embrace religion?

What about puritanical parents whose offspring grow up to be libertines or s3xual nonconformists? Or political progressives whose children turn into hardline conservatives, and the reverse?

Every adult is entitled to opinions and convictions that stand apart from their parents? and go beyond the limits of their upbringing.

Democracies rely on individual accountability. Expecting a politician to bear the stigma of adult children?s behavior is fundamentally unfair and impractical.

That said, a distinction must be made between adult children who live their lives quietly and independently of their parents? political power, and those who thrust themselves brazenly into the public arena to profit from the privileges of their parents? offices.

When politicians? children openly leverage state resources, project political influence, and enjoy the spoils of power, they cease to be private citizens who should be left alone. By their own choices, they make themselves fair game for public scrutiny and political critique.

A prime example is Seyi Tinubu, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu?s son, who often comports himself as though he were Nigeria?s unelected vice president. He attends high-level government functions (he, in fact, once attended the Federal Executive Council meeting!), represents his father, issues directives in ways that suggest political authority, and flaunts access to state resources unavailable to ordinary citizens.

In effect, Seyi has blurred the line between the private sphere of being a politician?s son and the public responsibilities of elected office. In doing so, he has invited the same kind of critical gaze and accountability that his father must contend with.

Another striking instance illustrating this principle is the case of Hanan Buhari, daughter of former President Muhammadu Buhari. As I pointed out in my January 11, 2020, column titled ?Hanan Buhari and Unprecedented Abuse of Presidential Powers,? she used a publicly funded presidential jet for personal purposes (trips to conduct academic-related activities) despite holding no public office or official duty that would justify such access.

As I argued, this was ?straight-up unethical, even borderline illegal,? and clearly breached long-standing precedent. Past presidential children (Obasanjo?s, Yar?Adua?s, Jonathan?s) never exploited state aircraft for private vanity trips.

By appropriating state resources for personal convenience, Hanan transformed herself from a private individual into a beneficiary of public office, and by extension, fair game for public scrutiny and critique.

Contrast this with the conduct of Senator Oluremi Tinubu?s children, who have been scrupulously shielded from public life. Whatever their views, choices, or lifestyles may be, they are not paraded as part of the machinery of state power, nor do they exploit the privileges of proximity to it. Their absence from the public political stage is precisely why they do not, and should not, attract the same kind of scrutiny.

Similarly, in sharp contrast to Hanan Buhari?s entitled appropriation of state resources, her brother, Yusuf Buhari, kept a relatively low profile throughout his father?s presidency. He didn?t insert himself into the machinery of government, didn?t strut about as though he had a mandate from the Nigerian people, and wasn?t known to exploit the privileges of his father?s office in ways that attracted public scandal.

That was why, when he suffered a ghastly motorbike accident in December 2017, I openly sympathized with him and castigated those who celebrated his tragedy in a December 28, 2017, social media post titled ?Yusuf Buhari: Time for Compassion.?

In that post, I reminded readers that before Yusuf was the president?s son, he was first a human being (someone?s child, sibling, and friend) whose personal catastrophe should never have been fodder for political glee.

I called out people who reveled in his misfortune as ?unfeeling wretches? and ?scoundrels,? because accidents can happen to anyone, regardless of social privilege. Yusuf?s detachment from the affairs of state meant that he deserved empathy, not condemnation, in his moment of vulnerability.

These contrasts underscore the principle that when political children stay away from the trappings of power and live as ordinary citizens, they deserve privacy and compassion. But when they exploit state resources or wield influence without a mandate, they cross into the public arena and, in so doing, invite legitimate scrutiny.

But those who choose to bask in the glow of public power and benefit materially and symbolically from it cannot reasonably expect to escape the obligations of accountability that come with that exposure. (Saturday Tribune)

Update news