By
Ola Olateju
In a recent statement that has stirred political and spiritual circles alike, Primate Elijah Ayodele, leader of the INRI Evangelical Spiritual Church, declared that the emerging political coalition led by Atiku Abubakar, Nasir El-Rufai, Aminu Tambuwal, and others was “dead on arrival.”
He went further to describe their leadership ambitions as dangerous, likening Atiku to a mortician, El-Rufai to a grave digger, and Peter Obi to a stagnation agent.
According to the Primate, it is better to allow President Tinubu—whom he himself blames for Nigeria’s current state—to remain in power and “repair what he spoiled.” This statement, ostensibly spiritual in tone, is in reality a textbook example of political propaganda dressed as prophecy.
As citizens and thinkers concerned with the fate of our democracy, we must critically dissect such pronouncements that confuse the sacred with the strategic, the divine with the divisive.
The Moral Contradiction
One of the gravest contradictions in Primate Ayodele’s statement is the moral and logical inconsistency of advocating continuity for a leader he acknowledges has brought Nigeria to ruin. True spiritual leadership must reflect ethical consistency. If Tinubu’s leadership has been damaging, then endorsing his continuity amounts to blessing incompetence—and by extension, suffering.
Hyperbole over Holiness
The Primate’s use of phrases like “Atiku will take Nigeria to the mortuary” and “El-Rufai will bury it” may generate media traffic, but they lack the gravitas and depth expected of genuine prophecy. Such sensationalism does not edify the body politic; it poisons it with fear, confusion, and cynicism. A prophetic voice should bring clarity, inspire reform, and uphold truth—not mimic tabloid exaggerations.
The Danger of Sweeping Judgments
One of the most intellectually lazy and spiritually reckless aspects of Primate Ayodele’s pronouncement is the sweeping condemnation of all opposition figures as incapable of salvaging Nigeria. It is a dangerous oversimplification that ignores the complex individual profiles and contributions of these leaders.
Take Atiku Abubakar, for instance. Beyond his long political career, Atiku is a proven entrepreneur and job creator. His investments in education through the American University of Nigeria (AUN) in Yola, his numerous business ventures across agriculture, logistics, and manufacturing, and his consistent advocacy for restructuring Nigeria’s federal system are marks of a statesman who understands both economic vision and national complexity. His political trajectory has demonstrated a commitment to civil liberties, federalism, and competitive governance. To equate such a figure with failure without reference to his track record is not just unjust—it is profoundly misleading.
Atiku, like the late Chief MKO Abiola of the Social Democratic Party, belongs to the class of patriotic national bourgeoisie: wealthy, but deeply committed to the upliftment of society. Abiola used his wealth to promote education, social welfare, and cultural renaissance. Atiku’s trajectory, while different in style and era, resonates with this spirit of national investment and progressive reform.
Peter Obi, for instance, has garnered significant public support for his integrity, reformist message, and prudent fiscal management during his tenure as governor of Anambra State. He is widely viewed as a disciplined administrator and a symbol of the people’s yearning for clean, accountable governance. To reduce such a figure to a mere agent of national “stagnation” reflects either a lack of spiritual discernment or a deliberate political alignment—both of which call into question the credibility of the Primate’s message.
To dismiss men of this calibre with shallow metaphors about mortuaries and burial grounds is not prophetic—it is politically biased and intellectually bankrupt. Democracy thrives on debate, vision, and options. Blanket rejection of capable individuals simply because they are not in power today is an affront to both the spirit of democracy and the values of prophetic integrity.
Fatalism as a Theological Tool
Perhaps most dangerous is the defeatist suggestion that Nigerians should “leave it to Tinubu to repair what he spoiled.” Such rhetoric promotes fatalism and discourages civic engagement and democratic accountability. Rather than empower Nigerians to seek change, it reinforces helplessness—and worse, excuses mediocrity.
Political Gossip Masquerading as Divine Insight
The claim that four PDP governors will work for the APC, unaccompanied by names or verification, further diminishes the credibility of the so-called prophecy. It sounds less like spiritual foresight and more like insider political gossip, damaging party cohesion and sowing distrust without offering solutions.
Conclusion: Prophecy Must Serve the People, Not Power
At this critical juncture in Nigeria’s history, religious leaders have a duty to serve as the conscience of the nation—not as echo chambers for entrenched interests. Primate Ayodele’s statement, sadly, reflects the latter. We must challenge such spiritual-political crossovers that undermine democracy, discredit reform, and blur the lines between divine instruction and political manipulation. As we approach 2027, Nigerians must reject spiritual fatalism and embrace critical thinking. The future of this country will not be shaped by alarmist predictions or recycled sycophancy—but by the courageous choices of an awakened electorate.
DR. OLA OLATEJU WRITES FROM ACHIEVERS UNIVERSITY, OWO, ONDO STATE
