The Theatre of the Absurd: Kogi West and the Fallacy of the ‘Stolen Mandate
By Ponle Adeniyi
ponleadeniyi457@gmail.com
The political landscape of Kogi West Senatorial District has always been a hotbed of high-stakes drama, but the latest legal posturing by Hon. Samuel Bamidele Aro takes the spectacle into the realm of pure delusion.
To watch a politician who did not participate in a legitimate primary election head to court to claim a “stolen mandate” is to witness a unique brand of political audacity. It is a despondent frenzy—a desperate, fallacious dance that defies both legal logic and basic morality.
- Advertisement -
In any functional democracy, the road to the red chamber begins at the party primaries. It is the crucible where candidates are tested, votes are cast, and a flagbearer emerges. Yet, in Kogi West, we are treated to a strange anomaly: a candidate attempting to bypass the starting line entirely, only to cry foul at the finish line.
The exposing of the alleged forgery that smuggled Hon. Sam Aro’s name to the party hierarchy should have been the end of this dramatic chapter. Instead, it has triggered an aggressive campaign of victimhood.
It is only in Nigeria that a man accused of larceny, after being caught red-handed in the cookie jar, will loudly wail that he was robbed of the very item he tried to steal.
To understand the sheer absurdity of this legal battle, we must contrast the core tenets of democratic representation against the reality of the current litigation:
In a healthy democracy, the path to leadership is clear: a candidate buys forms, campaigns on the ground, and earns the votes of party delegates in a transparent primary. Yet, in Kogi West, this standard was replaced by the phenomenon of the “ghost candidate”—someone who bypassed the voters entirely, relying instead on backroom maneuvers to secure nomination papers.
Where the law demands absolute integrity through verified, screened, and legitimate documentation, this campaign relied on a smuggled name and a forgery scheme that was ultimately exposed to the public.
The most bizarre twist, however, lies in the legal aftermath. The courts exist to protect legitimately earned mandates from being hijacked. But in this case, heading to court isn’t a search for justice; it is a desperate attempt to reclaim a “victory” that was never actually won on the field. It is the ultimate political paradox: trying to sue for the return of a stolen item you were caught trying to take in the first place.
When the foundation of a house is built on a falsehood, no amount of legal masonry can keep it standing. Hon. Sam Aro’s decision to seek solace in the courts is not a quest for justice; it is a tactical distraction designed to keep his political career on life support.
By playing the victim of an imaginary robbery, he hopes to obscure the glaring reality of his non-participation. But the public, and indeed the law, cannot be so easily gaslit. You cannot lose an election you never ran in, and you cannot claim ownership of a seat you tried to acquire through the back door.
If Hon. Sam Aro is truly investing his hopes in the judiciary to validate this farce, we can only offer him our thoughts and prayers. He will need them. In the court of law, as in the court of public opinion, facts are stubborn things—and no amount of loud wailing will turn a recovered stolen item back into legal property.
(DEMOCRACY NEWSLINE NEWSPAPER, JULY 17TH 2026)
