By Prof. Ben Binabai
The reported prophecy of Primate Elijah Ayodele that High Chief Government Oweizide Ekpemupolo, popularly known as Tompolo, must do everything possible to ensure President Bola Ahmed Tinubu's victory in the 2027 presidential election or risk fleeing Nigeria raises serious questions about the relationship between prophecy, political psychology and the struggle for power in Nigeria. My concern is not merely whether the Primate has seen correctly or whether his prediction will eventually come to pass. My concern is the political meaning and possible consequences of a proclamation that connects an electoral outcome to the personal security of a prominent Niger Delta figure.
To my mind, this prophecy, as reported, is not beyond the imagination of an ordinary person who understands the character of Nigerian politics. One does not necessarily need to be a prophet to imagine that a political actor who fails to deliver electoral victory for a preferred candidate may encounter difficulties when the balance of power changes. Political rivalry, the struggle for influence, the consolidation of power and the fear of retaliation are familiar subjects of political calculation. What, therefore, makes this prediction exclusively prophetic? Is it the possibility it describes or the spiritual authority with which it is presented? A political possibility does not become supernatural knowledge simply because it is proclaimed in the language of prophecy.
What particularly concerns me is the manner in which such a proclamation may enter the political consciousness of the public. When a religious leader declares that a man must secure a particular electoral outcome or flee his country, the statement moves beyond an ordinary prediction. It establishes a psychological connection between political performance and personal survival. It introduces the possibility of fear, insecurity and intimidation into a contest that ought to be governed by political judgement, persuasion and democratic choice.
This is where the dynamics of prophecy become important. A prophecy may claim to describe the future, yet its public announcement may influence the present. It may shape perceptions, generate anxiety, alter political calculations and affect how people interpret the actions of the person named. In other words, the prophecy may become an instrument of political pressure, irrespective of whether the prophet consciously intends it to serve that purpose. Its political effect and the intention behind it are two different questions, and they must not be confused.
I am particularly interested in the possible implications for Tompolo's political mobilisation. If he is deploying his influence to mobilise support for Tinubu's re-election, a proclamation that links his personal security to Tinubu's victory could introduce an entirely different interpretation of his political activities. Rather than being understood as a conscious political choice informed by negotiations, interests or expectations for the Niger Delta, his mobilisation could be interpreted as an attempt to secure his own survival. Such a perception, if it develops, may weaken the political meaning and persuasive strength of his campaign.
Here lies the paradox. A prophecy ostensibly warning Tompolo about the consequences of electoral defeat may strengthen his determination to mobilise support for Tinubu. At the same time, it may create fear and uncertainty around his political engagement. It may therefore serve as encouragement on one level and intimidation on another. Whether these effects will occur remains an open question.
This brings me to a more disturbing question: who benefits politically when a prominent figure is publicly told that his future in Nigeria may depend on the victory of a particular presidential candidate? Could such a proclamation, regardless of its author's intention, weaken Tompolo's political independence, place his mobilisation under psychological pressure or influence the public's interpretation of his relationship with Tinubu? These are legitimate questions. However, I would not conclude, without further evidence, that the Primate is acting for a particular political camp or deliberately attempting to undermine Tompolo. The possible political usefulness of a statement does not, by itself, prove the motive behind it.
Nevertheless, we must not overlook the political consequences of prophetic language. In a country where political competition is frequently discussed in the language of winners and losers, loyalty and betrayal, power and exclusion, a prophecy of doom can deepen existing anxieties. It may encourage people to imagine electoral defeat not as a democratic transition but as the beginning of personal punishment. Such a mentality is dangerous because it turns politics into a struggle for survival and weakens the spirit of democratic coexistence.
There is also a question of prophetic authority. The dramatic gestures and apparent certainty associated with the Primate's reported proclamation may reinforce its impact on an audience. Yet the performance of certainty is not proof of the certainty of the future. Conviction is not evidence; dramatic intensity is not verification; and spiritual authority should not place a public declaration beyond critical examination. The public has every right to ask whether what is presented as supernatural revelation may also be explained through ordinary political reasoning.
Tompolo, for his part, should not be reduced to a passive subject of another man's prophecy. As I understand his approach, he is a man who consults before making decisions. That description should not be taken as proof of supernatural knowledge, but it reminds us that he has his own processes of judgement and deliberation. The Primate's proclamation cannot, by itself, determine Tompolo's destiny or cancel his political agency. Neither should Tompolo's decisions be dictated by fear of a publicly announced catastrophe.
The greater issue, however, transcends Tompolo as an individual. The Niger Delta has enduring political, economic and developmental interests that cannot be reduced to the electoral fortunes of one presidential candidate or the personal circumstances of one influential figure. Any mobilisation for Tinubu, or any other candidate, should be evaluated in relation to policies, commitments, performance and the prospects of the region. Political support is more meaningful when it arises from conviction and a reasoned assessment of interests than when it appears to be driven by fear.
My position, therefore, is that the reported proclamation deserves critical scrutiny because its political implications may be more consequential than its prophetic claim. We must distinguish revelation from rational calculation, prediction from intimidation, political effect from political intention, and spiritual authority from political power. Without evidence. The religious character of the proclamation cannot prevent us from examining the pressure it may create or the political advantage it may confer.
Ultimately, the question is not simply whether Primate Ayodele has seen the future correctly. It is whether a prophecy that connects electoral defeat to personal ruin illuminates political reality or contributes to the production of fear. A prophecy of political doom may become an instrument of political pressure even when its supernatural authenticity remains unproven. That, for me, is the central contradiction.
In a democracy, no individual should be made to feel that his continued presence in his country depends on delivering victory for a particular candidate. Elections should be contests of ideas, policies, interests and persuasion, not psychological battles in which predictions of catastrophe become instruments of influence. Tompolo must be free to make his political choices through judgement and consultation, just as the Nigerian electorate must remain free to determine its political future without the shadow of prophetic intimidation.
Tompolo’s contribution to national stability and development should be assessed beyond the narrow framework of electoral mobilisation. As a prominent figure from the Niger Delta, his influence can contribute to peace, security and development when it is directed towards constructive engagement, conflict prevention and the protection of critical national assets. His role in supporting stability in the region, encouraging dialogue and promoting an environment conducive to economic activity deserves recognition. Tompolo’s greatest contribution would be to use his authority to promote peaceful participation, discourage violence, support development initiatives and strengthen confidence in democratic processes rather than allow his influence to be defined solely by electoral calculations.
My advice to Primate Ayodele is to exercise restraint and responsibility when making politically sensitive prophecies. Religious leaders possess considerable influence, and statements linking an individual’s political performance to exile, danger or personal ruin can generate fear and may unintentionally create political pressure. Prophecy should not be presented in a manner that appears to threaten, intimidate or compromise the independence of any citizen. If the Primate believes he has received a warning, it should be communicated with humility, clarity and concern for peace, while recognising that political decisions belong to citizens and democratic institutions. He should also distinguish spiritual counsel from political advocacy and avoid language that could be interpreted as endorsing one candidate through fear of the consequences of defeat. In a democracy, prophetic authority should encourage wisdom, peace and accountability, not anxiety or coercion.
The future will judge the prophecy by what actually happens. The present, however, must judge the proclamation by the questions it raises, the fears it may generate and the political consequences it may produce. For while a prophet may claim to foresee the future, the public must retain the freedom to interrogate the prophecy. The authority to proclaim must never become the authority to intimidate, and the language of destiny must never be allowed to silence the critical intelligence of the people.
