There are missteps a nation can laugh off, and there are others that expose something far more troubling; a growing indifference to the sanctity of our institutions. What happened at the opening ceremony of the 2025 All Nigeria Judges Conference in Abuja belongs firmly in the latter category. And it is the Tinubu administration that must answer for it. A judicial conference is not a campaign ground. It is not a stadium packed with party militants and sympathizers. It is a sacred space; one of the few remaining in our national life meant to stand above politics, above noise, above the fever of partisan battles. Yet into that solemn hall, as President Bola Tinubu approached the podium, came a song that had absolutely no business being there: “On Your Mandate We Shall Stand.”
That anthem – because that is what it has become for a political base – was forged in the fire of electoral combat. It is drenched in the rhetoric of campaign loyalty. And no matter who played it, no matter how briefly it rang, its meaning did not evaporate when it entered a hall filled with judges. Meaning never does especially in a country where judicial neutrality is constantly under threat. The Guards Brigade Band may have been the immediate culprit, but it is the administration that must carry the responsibility. Because protocol is not an accident. Symbolism is not random. And context is never irrelevant when dealing with the Judiciary; the very institution tasked with checking executive power.
The Tinubu administration should have known better. And if it did know better, then it should have done better. Instead, a political chant was allowed to pierce through a space meant to reflect the solemn dignity of the Bench. The dissonance was jarring, unnecessary, and frankly reckless. Worse still, it happened moments after the President delivered one of his most forceful warnings yet against judicial corruption. Powerful words deserve a powerful setting. Instead, they were immediately undercut by a symbol so politically charged that it nearly drowned out the message.
How does one preach purity while inviting partisanship through the back door? Jibrin Okutepa Senior Advocate of Nigeria, (SAN) captured the national mood when he warned that the entire episode felt “disgraceful and dangerous.” He was right. Judicial officers should not be placed, by accident or by carelessness, into situations where neutrality can be mistaken for allegiance. In today’s Nigeria, perception is not a minor detail; perception is often the entire story.
The National Judicial Institute did well to clarify the facts: judges did not sing; the song was not of the judiciary’s choosing; the anthem they actually rendered was Nigeria’s national anthem, not a political one. These clarifications matter. But they do not cure the wound. Public trust does not wait for press statements. It reacts instantly, sometimes unfairly, always powerfully.
And trust in the Judiciary is one of the most fragile commodities in this country. What makes this episode so painful is that the Judiciary, under Chief Justice Kudirat Motonmori Kekere-Ekun, has been attempting something rare: slow, quiet, steady reform. A cleanup of internal discipline. A renewed seriousness in administration. A growing sense that the courts might once again command the respect of the public. These are early steps, fragile steps. And fragile steps require careful guardianship, not careless optics.
That is why this incident is bigger than a song. It is about a presidency failing to read the room; failing to understand that judicial spaces demand a different sensitivity. It is about government handlers who have grown too comfortable blurring lines that should remain bright, thick, and untouchable. It is about the creeping normalization of political symbolism in places where politics should never appear. If a campaign anthem can accidentally enter a judicial conference today, what might enter next year? What other lines may be crossed, shrugged off, explained away? This is how institutional boundaries erode, not through grand conspiracies, but through small, casual acts of thoughtlessness.
The Tinubu administration must take responsibility for the carelessness that allowed this symbol of partisanship to taint a judicial gathering. It must demand more discipline from its protocol officers, more awareness from its security units, more respect from those who handle state ceremony. Because neutrality is not simply practiced; it must be seen. And it must be protected fiercely. The song was not a crime. But it was an insult to the moment, to the institution, and to the principle that the Judiciary must stand apart from politics. It was a failure of judgment at a time when judgment matters more than ever. If this administration is truly committed to strengthening the Judiciary, as its rhetoric insists; then it must prove it. Not with speeches, but with actions. And the first step is simple: never again should a political anthem ring out in a room full of judges.
