(A Nigerian NewsLeader Editorial, Tuesday, October 27, 2026)
Nigerians are interesting lot! They are mostly citizens with uncanny ability and instinctive inclination towards sycophancy.
In official and political settings, especially, and in the present economic times characterized by hardship, the survival behavior of a typical Nigerian is easily manifest in his fawning attitude and in his thoughtless genuflection and grovelling like a supplicant. The end game is still survival or quest for acceptance !
This culture is worst seen in politics. It is now becoming a fundamentally troubling political culture in Nigeria. Narrowing this culture to politics, it often presents in a situation where a politician who enters Government House as governor following a disputed election, loses the position through a final court judgment and is subsequently exposed as the beneficiary of an invalid electoral process but may continue to enjoy the honorific title of "His Excellency" or "Her Excellency".
The practice raises important questions about political accountability, democratic values, public morality and the appropriate use of titles associated with the highest offices of executive government.
Now, asking rhetorically: should a person whose election has been nullified by a court of competent jurisdiction in Nigeria continue to enjoy the same public recognition as a legitimate elected governor or president? Also, should a politician whose supposed electoral victory has been judicially overturned on the basis of electoral fraud and manipulations be introduced at public functions with an honorific that symbolises the dignity and authority of an executive office?
Indeed, should such individual be addressed as "His Excellency" of "Her Excellency"?
These questions deserve serious national debate, particularly as Nigeria prepares for the much expected 2027 general elections.
However, it is important to clarify here that not every politician removed by an election-related court judgment has been judicially found to have engaged in election rigging. Some judgments concern unlawful party primaries or the wrongful exclusion of candidates from the ballot, or disqualification or even the legal interpretation of a candidate's tenure. The language used in discussing individual cases must therefore reflect the actual findings of the courts.
Nevertheless, where a court establishes that an election was invalid, the democratic implications are significant enough to warrant a review of Nigeria's political protocols, especially of prefixing "His Excellency" or "Her Excellency" to such individual's name or while honouring him or her.
What we need to first ascertain here is whether "His Excellency" is a title expressly guaranteed by Nigeria's extant Constitution or another law.
A review of the constitutional provisions governing the presidency and governorships does not establish "His Excellency" as a constitutional title in itself. The apex law book (the Constitution) establishes the offices, their qualifications, the conditions for assuming office, their tenure and the circumstances under which such political office holders may cease to occupy them.
For instance, Sections 130 and 131 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) establish the presidency of Nigeria and prescribed the qualifications for election to that office. Sections 176 and 177 provide the corresponding framework for state governors. Section 180 regulates the tenure of governors, while Section 182 specifies circumstances of disqualification. Section 285 addresses the jurisdiction and time limits governing election petitions.
The Constitution also provides for election petitions to be determined by the appropriate tribunals and courts, with the applicable appellate process determining when a judgment becomes final. The crucial point is that the Constitution does not expressly provide that every governor or president must be addressed as "His Excellency", and neither does it establish a general statutory procedure for withdrawing that honorific from a former office holder. The expression "His Excellency" belongs principally to the realm of protocol, convention and official forms of address.
Nigerian government institutions routinely use it for serving governors and other appropriate dignitaries. An example is the protocol guidance published by the Anambra State Government. Consequently, there is a clear line between losing the legal right to occupy an office and losing an honorific associated with that office. When a court removes a governor, the individual ceases to exercise the authority of governor from the legally effective point established by the judgment. The former governor cannot continue exercising executive powers merely because the honorific remains in circulation.
However, the court judgment that nullified his position or alleged stolen office, does not automatically create a general criminal conviction for electoral fraud, nor does it necessarily extinguish every courtesy title previously associated with the individual.
Nigeria currently has no clearly established, generally applicable statutory rule automatically cancelling the honorific 'His Excellency' whenever an election petition succeeds. This legal gap is precisely why the matter deserves attention from the National Assembly, state legislatures, the Presidency and the appropriate protocol authorities.
One of the most instructive examples in this editorial discussion is the case of Mr Celestine Omehia, who was sworn in as governor of Rivers State on May 29, 2007.
Omehia's tenure lasted approximately five months. On October 25, 2007, the Supreme Court of Nigeria ruled in favour of Rt. Hon. Rotimi Chibuike Amaechi, holding that Amaechi was the lawful candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and therefore was entitled to the governorship of Rivers State to succeed Dr Peter Odili. The case was unusual because the court's decision was rooted in the party's nomination process rather than a straightforward finding that Omehia had personally rigged the election.
Nevertheless, it raised a fundamental question about the relationship between an individual's period in Government House and the legal legitimacy of the mandate under which the person occupied it. Years later, the controversy returned to public attention.
In October 2022, the Rivers State House of Assembly passed a motion seeking to withdraw Celestine Omehia's recognition as a former governor. The motion also called for an end to his use of title 'His Excellency' preceding his name and the state's GSSRS honour, alongside demands concerning financial benefits previously received.
The dispute followed Omehia's earlier recognition by the state government under former governor Nyesom Wike.
The episode demonstrated that recognition as a former governor, access to benefits and the use of official honours can become matters of public controversy even long after a court has determined who was legally entitled to the office. It also illustrates an important principle which is that the continued use of an honorific should not be mixed up with a continuing legal entitlement to the privileges of public office. Whether a former office holder is entitled to pensions, allowances or state honours should be determined by the relevant laws and legally applicable decisions, not simply by the person's preferred form of address.
Nigeria's Fourth Republic, which began in 1999, provides several examples of election disputes that resulted in the removal of sitting governors or the reversal of declared results.
In Anambra State, Dr Chris Ngige was declared the winner of the 2003 governorship election. But after prolonged litigation, the election tribunal's decision in favour of Mr Peter Obi was upheld by the Court of Appeal in March 2006. Obi subsequently assumed office. The case is widely regarded as an important early example of judicial intervention in a governorship election under the Fourth Republic.
Then, in Ondo State, Dr Olusegun Agagu of blessed memory, was removed from office as governor following litigation over the 2007 gubernatorial election. The courts upheld Dr Olusegun Mimiko's claim to the mandate, and Mimiko assumed office in February 2009.
Also in Edo State, Professor Oserheimen Osunbor was removed as governor after the election tribunal and the appellate court ruled in favour of then former President of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), Comrade Adams Oshiomhole over the 2007 election. Oshiomole served as Edo governor for constitutional eight years.
In Ekiti State, Dr Olusegun Oni of the then People's Democratic Party (PDP) was removed in October 2010 after the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Dr Kayode Fayemi of the defunct Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu's founded Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) in the dispute arising from the 2007 governorship election.
And in Osun State too, retired military officer, Chief Olagunsoye Oyinlola of the PDP was removed in November 2010 after an appellate court declared Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola of the Tinubu's ACN party the winner of the disputed 2007 election.
These cases demonstrate the importance of election petitions in correcting electoral verdicts and upholding the rule of law. They also raise the question of how former office holders should be described after the courts have determined that they were not legally entitled to retain their declared electoral victories.
The First Republic, which operated from 1963 until the military coup of January 1966, had regional premiers rather than state governors under the present presidential system. Its constitutional arrangements differed substantially from those of the Fourth Republic. The Second Republic, from 1979 to 1983, operated under a presidential constitution with elected state governors. Election disputes occurred during this period, but a claim that a particular governor was judicially removed for proven election rigging requires verification against the relevant court record.
The Third Republic under the military regime of General Ibrahim Babangida was a brief and incomplete democratic transition. The annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election is a major historical event, which has no represented as a court judgment removing an inaugurated president from office. Nigeria did not inaugurate a civilian president under that aborted transition.
Accordingly, the strongest readily documented examples of sitting governors being removed through election litigation come from the Fourth Republic. A comprehensive historical list covering all republics would require systematic examination of archival judgments, tribunal decisions and contemporary records.
But the strongest argument for reform is democratic accountability. Public office is a constitutional trust, not a royal privilege. The people confer political authority through elections conducted under the law. Where a court establishes that the declared electoral results cannot stand, the affected politician should not be permitted to use ceremonial language to suggest that the invalidated mandate remains legitimate. The problem is not that every former office holder must be stripped of personal dignity. Rather, official protocol should communicate the difference between someone who currently holds constitutional authority and someone who no longer does.
There is also a public education concern in this situation. When journalists, public officials and event organisers continue to introduce a former governor as though the person still occupies the office, audiences may misunderstand the individual's current legal status. The same concern applies when an individual whose election was overturned is presented as though the court's judgment had no democratic significance. An individual who previously served lawfully does not necessarily lose every courtesy merely because his or her tenure has ended. The circumstances of departure matter.
A politician who completes a legitimate tenure and who loses an election or leaves office constitutionally, is not in the same position as one whose declared victory is overturned by a final judgment.
Therefore, where did Nigeria get the culture?
The expression 'His Excellency' has deep roots in diplomatic protocol and European court traditions. It became an established form of address for ambassadors, heads of state and other high-ranking dignitaries.
Nigeria inherited many aspects of British colonial administrative practice and subsequently developed its own official protocol conventions after independence.
In contemporary Nigeria, the expression is commonly used for the President, Vice-President in certain ceremonial contexts, state governors and other designated dignitaries.
However, the use of the expression varies internationally. It is not a universal requirement of presidential democracy.
The United States, for example, generally uses Mr President, Madam President and The Honorable for elected officials. The US State Department (United States Department of State's) protocol guidance distinguishes the forms of address used for American public officials from those reserved for foreign dignitaries.
The Commonwealth tradition is also not uniform. British domestic political practice generally uses the title of the office or the person's ordinary form of address rather than routinely calling the prime minister "His Excellency". Nigeria's practice is therefore a convention, not an indispensable feature of democratic government.
In countries like India, what they do is instructive. In October 2012, President Pranab Mukherjee approved changes to official protocol discontinuing the use of 'His Excellency' during domestic functions and interactions between Indian dignitaries and the President. The expression was retained for dealings involving foreign dignitaries, consistent with international diplomatic practice. The replacement was 'Honorable President' or 'Honorable Governor', with traditional forms of address preceding the person's name. The decision was intended to move away from an inherited, colonial-era ceremonial practice and adopt a more people-oriented style.
The United States provides another useful comparison. Its official protocol generally uses 'The Honorable' for elected officials, including governors. Its conventions also recognise that some courtesy titles can continue after a person leaves office.
However, the United States Department of State's guidance indicates that former officials who leave office in disgrace or are removed may be treated differently under the relevant protocol conventions.
These examples show that countries can distinguish between the dignity of public office, the status of former office holders and the ceremonial language used to address them. They also demonstrate that there is no single international rule automatically cancelling every title following an adverse election judgment. Nigeria can therefore develop a protocol suited to its constitutional system and democratic expectations.
Nigerian NewsLeader newspaper believes the expression should be used consistently, sparingly and in accordance with clearly defined official protocol. Where Nigeria retains the convention, its primary application should be to serving office holders and dignitaries who are entitled to it under the relevant protocol rules, including the President and serving state governors.
Former officeholders should be described accurately as former presidents or former governors. Whether they retain a courtesy title should be settled by a transparent national protocol rather than partisan preferences.
And where a court has finally overturned an individual's election and the person was never legally entitled to the mandate claimed, the protocol should not allow the individual to use the honorific in a manner that falsely implies continuing constitutional authority. However, any withdrawal of a courtesy title should be based on a published rule and not on political retaliation or the personal discretion of an incumbent governor. The same rule must apply to every political party. If an All Progressives Congress (APC) governor loses an election petition, the rule should apply. And if an opposition governor suffers the same fate in court, the rule should also apply.
No political party should be permitted to manipulate official recognition to reward allies or punish opponents.
The time has come for the federal and state governments to review the protocol.
The National Assembly should consider whether a uniform framework is desirable, while the relevant state authorities should examine their existing protocol rules and legislation governing former governors' recognition and entitlements. The framework should separate between a person who lawfully completes a tenure, a person who resigns or is constitutionally removed, a person whose election is overturned, and a person convicted for an offence involving electoral fraud.
It should also clarify whether the honorific belongs to the office alone or survives as a personal courtesy after lawful service, or may be withdrawn in specified circumstances. A final court judgment overturning an election should trigger an automatic correction of official records identifying the lawful office holder. Any separate decision to withdraw a personal courtesy title should follow the prescribed protocol. And where a person is subsequently convicted of electoral fraud, the framework may provide additional consequences, subject to constitutional safeguards and due process. Most importantly, the law should distinguish between the loss of office and the loss of an honorific. They are related questions, but not legally identical.
However, the media has a central responsibility in this debate to lead a change.
Newspapers, television stations, radio broadcasters and online news publications should report court decisions accurately and describe former office holders according to their actual legal status. For instance, a former governor should not be described as the incumbent after a final judgment has removed the person from office. Where an honorific remains a matter of protocol, journalists should avoid allowing it to obscure the court's decision.
News organisations also should resist the temptation to call every politician removed through election litigation a rigger unless the court's findings support that description.
Accuracy is as important as accountability.
The Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE), the Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ), the Guild of Corporate Online Publishers (GOCOP), the Broadcasting Organisation of Nigeria (BON) and other professional bodies should consider developing guidance on the use of official titles in reporting election disputes and judicially determined electoral verdicts. Such guidance would help strengthen public understanding of it without turning journalism into an instrument of political vendetta.
OUR POSITION
Nigerian NewsLeader newspaper believes that the dignity of public office must be protected by the integrity of the electoral process, not by ceremonial language. A title cannot repair an invalid mandate, and neither should a political honour be used to diminish the authority of a final court judgment.
Nevertheless, the removal of a person from office does not, under existing Nigerian law, automatically cancel every courtesy title previously associated with that individual.
The appropriate response is to establish clear, uniform and politically neutral rules governing the use and withdrawal of such titles.
We therefore call on the National Assembly, the Presidency, state governments, the judiciary and professional media organisations to initiate a national conversation on the issue. Nigeria's democracy will be better served when the language of public life reflects constitutional reality, and when electoral judgments are respected, or when titles are treated as instruments of protocol rather than symbols of personal superiority.
What is important in this circumstance is not how an office holder is grandly and publicly addressed, but how lawfully the person acquired power, how responsibly that power was exercised and how honourably it was surrendered. NNL.
