In recent public discourse, a dramatic moment unfolded when the wife of the president, Oluremi Tinubu, threatened to mute the microphone of Governor Ademola Adeleke during a public event in Osun State — a widely-circulated video that sparked fresh debate not just about protocol and decorum, but about the very foundation of the so-called “Office of the First Lady” in Nigeria.
That event merely highlights a deeper, long-standing constitutional and political tension: can the “First Lady’s office” ever be placed above the Nigerian Constitution? Below, I examine this question in full — what the law says, what recent controversies show, and why citizens and courts continue to question the legitimacy of funding or granting official powers to the First Lady.
📜 Constitutional Reality: The First Lady’s Office Doesn’t Exist Legally
At its core, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria does not recognize an “Office of the First Lady.”
The constitutional offices explicitly created include the President, Vice-President, Ministries, the Federal Executive Council, etc. There is no clause that creates or empowers an office for the spouse of the President.
Legal scholars argue that granting budgetary allocations, civil servants, vehicles, or official status to the First Lady is therefore “a constitutional aberration” or even “illegal.”
A 2016 academic assessment concluded that, because the First Lady is neither elected nor appointed under any constitutional provision, she has no legitimate mandate to administer public programmes or projects as if she were a government official.
Indeed, legal contestations have arisen. In 2023, a lawyer filed a suit at the Federal High Court challenging the allocation of N1.5 billion to the First Lady’s office, arguing that the appropriation violated constitutional provisions.
Thus, while the title “First Lady” is widely used, and the person dressing that title is socially acknowledged, under the law the “office” is de facto informal — not formally created, regulated, or accountable under constitutional law.
📰 What Recent Events With Tinubu & Adeleke Show — And Why They Matter
The controversy sparked by the fliers from the two wives of Osun State’s governor, and the recent microphone incident, illuminate the risks and contradictions involved when unofficial titles acquire unofficial power.
In April 2024, fliers circulated purporting to come from both wives of Governor Adeleke — each claiming to be “First Lady of Osun State” and inviting the First Lady of Nigeria for a state visit.
The governor had to intervene to clarify the official position: only one wife, Chief Mrs. Titilola Adeleke, is to be recognized as the state’s First Lady. The other flier — attributed to Mrs. Ngozi Adeleke — was disowned, decried as “fake news,” and its author was allegedly apprehended.
This episode underscores how, without a constitutional definition, the “office” becomes subject to personal claims, rivalry, misinformation and confusion. It also points to potential misuse — such as fictitious fliers, false claims of official capacity, or opportunistic appropriation of the “First Lady” brand for personal visibility.
More recently, the altercation at the public event — where Oluremi Tinubu threatened to switch off Governor Adeleke’s microphone — stirred a broader debate: what kind of authority does the First Lady actually wield that allows her to attempt to silence a democratically elected governor at a public function?
When such encounters happen, they risk undermining democratic norms, accountability, and the principle that public authority must rest on constitutional legitimacy — not informal titles or personal influence.
🧑⚖️ Why Courts, Legal Experts, and Many Citizens Resist Institutionalizing the First Lady Office
Given the constitutional silence, several stakeholders have argued strongly against formalizing or preserving the First Lady’s office in its current form. Reasons include:
1. Violation of Constitutional Supremacy
Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, any institution deriving legitimacy outside the constitution is arguably void. Legal experts argue that the funding, staffing, and formal recognition of the First Lady’s office amount to unconstitutional acts because they lack any statutory or constitutional basis.
2. Lack of Democratic Mandate or Accountability
The spouse of a president or governor is not elected, nor are they subject to oversight by the electorate. As such, granting them official powers or budgetary allocations could bypass democratic accountability mechanisms.
An academic study found that many Nigerians surveyed regarded the office of the First Lady — in its current unregulated form — as unnecessary and a waste of public resources.
3. Risk of Abuse, Nepotism and Non-Transparency
Because the First Lady’s office lacks formal legal footing, funds allocated to it often evade standard procurement laws, civil-service regulations, or audit requirements. Critics warn this creates a fertile ground for “white-elephant” projects, misuse of funds, and lack of transparency.
4. Precedent for Expansion, Conflicts, Confusion
Allowing an informal office to operate with resources and visibility creates dangerous precedents: multiple “First Ladies” at state or local levels; duplication of roles; inter-spouse rivalries or power struggles, as seen recently in Osun; a slippery slope toward institutionalizing nepotism or parallel power centers.
Because of all this, many legal analysts and some civil society actors advocate for either abolishing the First Lady’s office altogether — or amending the constitution to clearly define its role, powers, oversight, and funding.
🤔 Does That Mean the First Lady Should Have No Role at All?
Not necessarily. The core of the dispute isn’t about the social concept of a “First Lady” — many acknowledge that the spouse of the President or governor will naturally have visibility and social influence. Rather, the debate centers on whether that influence should be formalized into a pseudo-public office, funded and staffed by the state.
Some scholars propose — instead of outright abolition — constitutional reform, where the First Lady’s role (if retained) is clearly defined:
as advisory or ceremonial, perhaps tied to formal social-welfare or advocacy efforts, grafted under an existing constitutional ministry or agency;
with clear rules of engagement, accountability, transparency, and oversight;
with no access to exclusive governmental appropriation outside established budgets under ministries or agencies.
Such reform, proponents argue, would safeguard the dignity of the position while preventing abuses, overlap of power, wasteful spending, and constitutional violations.
🧩 What the Public Spat Over Tinubu & Adeleke Suggests: Lessons for Governance and Civics
The recent controversy — the fliers saga in Osun, followed by the microphone threat — should be more than sensational headlines or social media talking points. They should serve as a civic warning. Specifically:
When informal titles masquerade as official offices, it blurs the lines of legitimate authority. This increases the risk of power misuse, confusion, and unaccountability.
It exposes how political actors can exploit social norms, public sentiment, or traditional courtesy to claim official power — even when legally untenable.
It demonstrates why constitutional clarity is critical: without it, governance becomes susceptible to personality conflicts, duplication of offices, or arbitrary claims of influence — at the expense of the rule of law, transparency, and democratic accountability.
✅ Bottom Line: The First Lady’s Office Should Not Be Above Constitutional Provisions
Given the constitutional framework of Nigeria:
The “Office of the First Lady” is not legally recognized.
Allocating funds, staff, vehicles, or giving “official” status to the First Lady constitutes — at least according to many legal scholars — a breach of constitutional provisions regarding public office, appropriation, and legitimacy.
Recent incidents — such as the fliers conflict and public confrontation between the First Lady and a state governor — show how much danger there is in allowing an informal social title to accrue real, unsanctioned power.
Therefore, until there is a constitutional amendment or formal law that clearly defines, regulates, and legitimises such a position — “the Office of the First Lady” should remain informal, ceremonial, and subordinate to constitutional provisions.
In the absence of that, any attempt to put it above or beyond the Constitution would not only be legally unjustified — but a threat to the clarity, integrity, and accountability of Nigeria’s governance.
0 Comments