By: Adekunle Alaye, PhD.
The relationship between political dissent, national identity and patriotic responsibility remain a fundamental subject in political science, particularly in emerging democracies where political disagreements frequently extend beyond national borders.
The recent confrontation involving the Chairman of Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Joash Amupitan, by a group of Nigerian protesters outside Chatham House in London on November 12, 2026, raises crucial questions about the boundaries of democratic activism and the responsibilities of citizens representing their country abroad.
Although citizens possess legitimate democratic rights to question public institutions, challenge electoral authorities and demand accountability, the methods through which such demands are expressed deserve critical examination.
Drawing on civic nationalism, social contract theory, democratic pluralism, political socialisation and the concept of soft power, this piece examines why patriotism must transcend partisan interests and why Nigerians in the diaspora should distinguish between holding their leaders accountable and damaging the collective image of their country.
One of the most important characteristics of a politically mature society is its ability to accommodate disagreements without allowing such disagreements to undermine the collective identity and dignity of the nation.
Hence, the existence of democratic freedom does not eliminate the responsibility of citizens to conduct themselves within the boundaries of civility, constitutionalism and respect for human dignity. This distinction becomes particularly important when political disagreements are exported beyond national borders. To this very extent, the recent confrontation involving Nigeria’s INEC Chairman, has brought this question into public discussion.
On November 12, 2026, a group of Nigerian protesters reportedly surrounded the vehicle conveying the electoral chief after his participation in a discussion on Nigeria’s 2027 elections. The demonstrators reportedly demanded his resignation and questioned the credibility and independence of the electoral commission. Some were also reported to have used confrontational language and obstructed the vehicle.
The incident deserves attention beyond its immediate political implications.
It raises a broader question: At what point does the exercise of democratic dissent become an expression of civic irresponsibility capable of undermining the international image of one’s country?
A Nigerian may disagree with an administration, without abandoning the responsibility to protect the dignity of the Nigerian state. There is nothing inherently undemocratic about Nigerians questioning the INEC chairman while he is in the United Kingdom. Indeed, electoral credibility is a legitimate public concern, especially as Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections. However, the democratic legitimacy of a grievance does not automatically validate every method adopted to express it.
Democracy is not simply the freedom to express anger. It is also the institutionalisation of restraint, tolerance and respect for the rights of others.
Consequently, the London incident should not be reduced to a question of whether the protesters supported or opposed the INEC chairman. The more important question is whether the manner of expressing their grievances reflected the democratic principles they claimed to defend.
One of the most relevant concepts for understanding this controversy is civic nationalism. Civic nationalism is founded on the idea that national identity derives from shared citizenship, constitutional values and commitment to the common good rather than loyalty to a particular political personality, ethnic group or political party.
From this theoretical perspective, Nigeria does not belong exclusively to the All Progressives Congress (APC), the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), the Labour Party, the African Democratic Congress (ADC), or any individual political leader. Nigeria belongs collectively to its citizens.
Consequently, disagreement with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, opposition to the APC-led administration, dissatisfaction with INEC or criticism of Professor Amupitan cannot reasonably be equated with a licence to undermine the dignity of the Nigerian state.
When citizens become so politically invested in the success or failure of particular political actors they lose sight of their broader national identity. Hence, politics risks becoming an instrument of social fragmentation.
A Nigerian living in London should be able to disagree with the INEC chairman without forgetting that the institution he represents is a Nigerian constitutional institution. Equally, the chairman himself must remain subject to public scrutiny and institutional accountability.
Of course, Nigerians in Diaspora, should contribute to international academic discourse, business development, scientific advancement, cultural diplomacy and professional exchange. At such that such contributions help shape international perceptions of Nigeria.
Hence, in contemporary international relations, national reputation is an important component of diplomatic influence. Countries are not judged exclusively by their governments alone. Their citizens, cultural representatives and public institutions also contribute to international perceptions.
Chatham House is an internationally recognised institution for discussions on foreign policy, governance and global affairs. The incident therefore deserves consideration not simply as a domestic political disagreement occurring in London, but also as an episode with potential reputational consequences.
The philosophical foundation of democratic citizenship can also be examined through social contract theory, particularly the contributions of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Social contract theory examines the relationship between individuals, political authority and the obligations that sustain an organised political community. Locke’s political philosophy recognises the right of citizens to challenge government authority when it violates the terms of legitimate governance. Rousseau’s understanding of the general will emphasises the importance of collective interests beyond narrow individual preferences.
Applying the above theory to the Nigerian situation, these perspectives produce an important distinction. Citizens are not expected to surrender their rights simply because their country is represented internationally. They retain the right to demand electoral transparency and question public officials.
Nevertheless, the existence of political rights must be accompanied by an appreciation of civic responsibilities. The right to protest should not be confused with an unrestricted right to intimidate or humiliate others. The appropriate democratic balance is therefore one in which public officials remain answerable to citizens, while citizens exercise their rights within the framework of law and responsible political participation.
While examining the conduct of the protesters, it is equally important not to overlook the responsibility of INEC itself. Professor Joash Amupitan occupies an important constitutional position in Nigeria’s democratic architecture. His responsibility extends beyond administering elections to helping sustain public confidence in the electoral process.
The credibility of an electoral umpire depends significantly on the perception and reality of impartiality, transparency and accountability of INEC.
For instance, reports indicate that the commission announced the removal of 1,608,660 invalid registrations identified during its 2025/2026 Continuous Voter Registration review, alongside 873 records of deceased persons. INEC also disclosed investigations and proposed prosecutions relating to registration irregularities.
Note, there is a fundamental difference between holding an electoral official accountable and attempting to undermine the dignity of the office through coercive confrontation. The objective should be to create an environment in which electoral authorities can answer difficult questions without fear, while citizens can challenge them without abandoning civility and the rule of law.
There is nothing wrong with organising demonstrations against Nigerian government policies in London, Berlin, Washington or Ottawa. Peaceful demonstrations, public advocacy, media engagement and institutional petitions are legitimate instruments of democratic expression.
However, the fundamental criticism here is the possible transformation of such democratic instruments into intimidation, obstruction and personal confrontation.
God bless Nigeria!
Adekunle Alaye, PhD.
Senior Research Associate of Political Science,
Visiting Scholar, Humboldt University, Berlin,
Germany.
Tel:+4915201847389
Email: skalaye2005@yahoo.com
