Offspring should stay out of parents’ political fights – Jawondo
In this interview, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and political leader, Salman Jawondo, shared his views on the increasing trend of politicians’ children dabbling into public political debates in defence of their parents. He argued that the disturbing development undermined ethical governance and threatened the maturity and integrity of Nigeria’s democratic space. Recently, […]
n
In this interview, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and political leader, Salman Jawondo, shared his views on the increasing trend of politicians’ children dabbling into public political debates in defence of their parents. He argued that the disturbing development undermined ethical governance and threatened the maturity and integrity of Nigeria’s democratic space.
Recently, there has been a rise in the number of offspring of public officeholders trying to project the public images of their parents. How do you view this trend?
This issue transcends the legal or constitutional realm. It is fundamentally about ethics, political culture and maturity. We are witnessing an unfortunate and unhealthy development where elected officials, particularly governors, are allowing or even encouraging their children to step into political debates. These children are defending their parents in ways that are emotionally charged, undisciplined and counterproductive. It is bad for governance, and quite frankly, it is embarrassing.
Some argue that these children have the constitutional right to express their views. Does that hold water legally?
Yes, from a legal standpoint, everyone has the right to freedom of expression. But the real question here is not whether they can speak but whether they should. This is about political ethics, not just rights. Public office demands a high level of responsibility, maturity and self-restraint. Sadly, such qualities are often lacking in these responses. Public discourse should be left to professionals and those constitutionally empowered to speak on behalf of officials, not family members acting out of sentiment.
Are you suggesting that politicians’ children should not engage in politics at all?
Not necessarily. If they want to pursue politics independently, that’s their right. But when it comes to jumping into political arguments simply to defend their parents; that’s where the line must be drawn. If your father is criticised as a public officeholder, it is not your place to react. That’s why officials have aides and media advisers. These roles exist precisely to handle public communication, not family members who lack the training or understanding of governance.
What does this trend indicate for our political culture?
It reflects a worrying level of degeneration. Political engagement is no longer characterised by maturity or experience. We now have individuals, clearly not emotionally or intellectually equipped, taking centre stage in discussions that demand composure and nuance. It shows that some of these children were not properly groomed or prepared for the weight and decorum that political discourse requires.
You seem concerned that this behaviour could escalate. What risks do you foresee?
If this continues unchecked, it could degenerate into physical confrontations, especially as emotions run high in our political climate. We have already seen cases where verbal attacks spiraled into threats or violence. That’s not the kind of precedent we want to set in a democracy. It creates instability and fosters a toxic political atmosphere.
In terms of broader impact, how does this behaviour affect public trust in governance?
It erodes public trust. When political discourse is hijacked by family members acting out of emotion rather than reason, the public loses faith in the system’s integrity. It sends a message that governance is a private affair, not a service to the people. It is damaging to democracy and the rule of law.
Many believe the social media is largely responsible for this behaviour. Do you agree?
I don’t think the platform is to blame. The social media is just a tool. The problem lies in the mindset and lack of understanding of public office. Holding public office means voluntarily stepping into the arena of public scrutiny. The response to criticism must be measured, and certainly not left to family members acting out of personal sentiment. If a public official cannot handle criticism, then perhaps they shouldn’t be in office.
Was this sort of behaviour common in previous political eras?
Not at all. It wasn’t like this during the earlier republics or even in the past eight years. What we are seeing now is a troubling new trend, particularly among governors’ children. It shows a decline in political values and public decorum. In the past, politicians knew the boundaries and their families stayed out of governance matters. Unfortunately, those lines are now being crossed.
What do you propose as solution?
Political parties must take responsibility. They should convene meetings with elected and appointed officials to remind them of the duties and limits that come with public office. They must also discourage the involvement of family members in public discourse unless it is within a formal, designated capacity. Nigerians too must reject this behaviour and demand a return to ethical political engagement.
You said some elected officials often grabbed office by whatever means; how does this correlate with their children’s behaviours?
Yes, many of these individuals did not simply earn their positions through clean, democratic processes. Some maneuvered their way in through manipulation, political influence or even abuse of the system. When such people get into office, they often carry a sense of entitlement, and that trickles down to their families. Their children begin to act as though public office is a personal inheritance, not a public trust.
Some might argue that it is natural for children to defend their parents. Is there any room for sympathy on that front?
Sympathy has its limits, especially in public service. If your parents choose to step into governance, they must accept everything that comes with it, including criticism. It is not the child’s role to fight those battles. It becomes even more inappropriate when the response is public, undignified or aggressive. Leadership demands emotional intelligence, not emotional reactions. Moreover, people voted for their parents and they are the ones feeling the impact of their decisions. So they should have the right and moral high ground to complain about the performances. That is it. Are they now fighting on behalf of their fathers or what? The development is not ideal at all.
What long-term effect do you think this could have on Nigeria’s political system if unchecked?
If we allow this to continue, we will be writing a negative chapter in our political history. It will institutionalise emotional and unprofessional interference in governance. It shifts focus from public service to personal battles, and that’s not the kind of democratic culture we should be building.
Should Nigerians reject or accept such interventions?
Nigerians should firmly reject and caution them. This kind of behaviour is not part of democracy. Anyone who volunteers to hold public office also volunteers to surrender a degree of personal and private life. That includes accepting public scrutiny without involving their family members. Governance is a public matter; and when criticism arises, it should be addressed through the proper channels, not through emotional reactions from children or relatives. If your parents are criticised, it is not your place to respond. This growing trend is deeply troubling and must be strongly opposed before it further damages the fabric of our political system.
Why do you believe that public opposition is very important in this case?
This is not democracy; it is rather the beginning of a dangerous distortion of it. When public officeholders bring their family into political discourse, it undermines the principles of accountability and mature governance. Nigerians must reject and openly caution this behaviour. Silence will only normalise it.
You also mentioned that holding public office is a voluntary sacrifice. Can you expand on that?
Absolutely. Nobody is forced to accept public office, especially elected ones. It is a voluntary act and it comes with sacrifices, including the surrender of a certain level of privacy. Criticism is part of that sacrifice. When someone offers to serve the public, they also invite public scrutiny. It is not the role of their children or relatives to interfere or react emotionally to such scrutiny.
Any message for public officeholders and their families?
Public office is not a family affair. Once you choose to serve, you sacrifice your private comfort and open yourself to public scrutiny. That sacrifice extends to your family as well. If you are not ready for that reality you have no business being in office. Our democracy cannot thrive on emotional outbursts from unelected, unappointed individuals. We must protect the dignity of our political space.