A heated political exchange has unfolded between Nigeria’s Vice President Kashim Shettima and Phrank Shaibu, aide to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, over recent comments about British Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch’s criticisms of Nigeria. The controversy highlights growing tensions between Nigerian political figures and diaspora leaders who critique their homeland.
Speaking at the 10th Annual Migration Dialogue held at the State House in Abuja, Vice President Shettima responded forcefully to Badenoch’s previous statements about Nigeria, acknowledging her right to personal opinions while defending Nigeria’s significance on the global stage. She is entitled to her own opinions; she has even every right to remove the Kemi from her name,” Shettima declared, adding that this doesn’t diminish Nigeria’s status as “the greatest black nation on earth.
The Vice President’s remarks referenced Badenoch’s controversial statements during her 2022 campaign to succeed Boris Johnson as British Prime Minister, where she alleged Nigerian politicians misappropriated public funds for personal use. More recently, at the Conservative Party conference, Badenoch spoke about her Nigerian upbringing being marked by fear and insecurity, citing widespread corruption as a significant concern.
Shettima’s response emphasized Nigeria’s demographic significance, noting that “one out of every three, four black men is a Nigerian” and projecting that by 2050, Nigeria would surpass the United States to become the world’s third most populous nation. These statements appeared designed to counter Badenoch’s negative characterization of the country while asserting Nigeria’s growing global influence.
However, Phrank Shaibu, Special Assistant on Public Communication to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, swiftly entered the fray with a sharp rebuke of Shettima’s position. Taking to X (formerly Twitter), Shaibu suggested that critics of Badenoch should engage in self-reflection rather than defensive posturing. His response introduced an interesting perspective on identity and nationality, arguing that Badenoch’s Yoruba heritage doesn’t automatically make her Nigerian, cleverly illustrating his point with a reference to Arsenal footballer Gabriel Jesus.
The exchange has sparked broader discussions about diaspora relations, national identity, and the complex relationship between successful international figures of Nigerian descent and their ancestral homeland. Badenoch’s rise to prominence in British politics has made her a particularly interesting figure in these debates, as her criticisms of Nigeria carry the weight of someone with direct experience of the country’s challenges.
This controversy emerges against the backdrop of ongoing discussions about Nigeria’s global image and the relationship between the country and its successful diaspora population. Badenoch’s critiques, while controversial, reflect tensions that often arise when diaspora figures achieve prominence in Western nations and speak critically about conditions in their countries of origin.
The disagreement between Shettima and Shaibu also reveals deeper political divisions within Nigeria itself, with opposition figures apparently more willing to acknowledge criticisms from abroad while government officials defend national pride and progress. This dynamic adds another layer to the already complex discussion about how Nigeria should respond to criticism from its diaspora community.
The debate raises important questions about the nature of national identity, loyalty, and the right to critique one’s country of origin. While Shettima’s defense of Nigeria emphasizes the country’s potential and demographic strength, Shaibu’s response suggests that constructive criticism, even from those who have distanced themselves from Nigeria, might deserve more thoughtful consideration.
As Nigeria continues to navigate its path in the global community, this incident highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing national pride with honest assessment of areas needing improvement. It also underscores the complex relationship between successful diaspora figures and their homeland, particularly when they achieve positions of influence in Western nations.
