By: The Scriptophobic
Prof. Anthony Kila’s recent article, Cosa Nostra in Lagos and Beyond, provides an insightful commentary on the internal struggles and political manoeuvrings within the Lagos State House of Assembly. While the piece draws intriguing parallels with the concept of power struggles and loyalty in organised groups, a different and perhaps more constructive perspective emerges when we examine the Yoruba political tradition of consensus-building, peace negotiation and disciplined leadership.
One of the most defining aspects of Yoruba political culture is its emphasis on consultation and structured leadership, a process deeply rooted in history and still evident today. The Yoruba people have long championed the idea that governance and power transitions must be deliberate, inclusive, and deeply rooted in respect for hierarchy and wisdom. The recent events in Lagos, while seemingly chaotic, actually reaffirm the Yoruba approach to crisis resolution, where conflict, no matter how intense, is ultimately settled through dialogue, respect for hierarchy and adherence to party structures.
The Yoruba political system has always been leader-centric, but not autocratic. The question “Where are your leaders?” is one that Yoruba politics answers with a structured chain of command, where senior figures and respected elders act as stabilising forces during moments of crisis. In Lagos, as in other Yoruba-led political spaces, no significant political upheaval is resolved without the intervention of these leaders, whose authority is derived not just from political power, but from long-standing cultural legitimacy and the ability to forge consensus.
Additionally, the supremacy of party discipline in Yoruba politics remains a key stabilising factor. The 49-day drama in the Lagos House of Assembly did not lead to a systemic breakdown because, at the core, the system values institutional continuity over personal ambitions. While conflicts may arise, they are ultimately resolved in ways that preserve party integrity and governance continuity. The ability to pull warring factions back into alignment through a mix of persuasion, political manoeuvring and consensus reflects a long-standing Yoruba tradition of internal dispute resolution without permanently fracturing the collective leadership structure.
Rather than viewing the events in Lagos as mere political theatre, they can also be seen as a testament to the resilience of the Yoruba leadership model. The capacity to quarrel, disagree, and yet find a pathway back to stability without degenerating into outright collapse is a political strength. It ensures that institutions endure beyond the ambitions of individual politicians, safeguarding governance structures for future generations.
In conclusion, the Yoruba approach to leadership and governance—anchored in consensus-building, hierarchical respect, and disciplined political structures—remains a strong counterpoint to notions of disorder or randomness in political conflict. The Lagos episode was not a breakdown of leadership; rather, it was an affirmation of a leadership model that allows for contestation but ultimately reinforces unity. This is not “Cosa Nostra”; it is the Yoruba way of ensuring that leadership remains organized, disputes are contained, and governance endures.
Would you like any refinements or additional angles to further emphasize the Yoruba leadership tradition?
