OPINION: Before becoming Vice President, Rotimi Amaechi must first define who he is

In recent media reports, former governor, Rotimi Amaechi is said to have stated that the Igbo people should recognize him before he again identifies himself as an Igbo person.

This statement ranks among the most extraordinary political statements ever made by a prominent figure in Nigeria – not because it settles the debate over Amaechi’s ethnicity, but because it raises a deeper question: Can other people determine who you are?

If Mr. Amaechi truly believes that his identity depends on whether others recognize it, then he has transformed ethnicity from an inherited social reality into a political certificate issued based on popular consent. That’s not how identity works. Identity Is Not a Referendum.

One of the first lessons in sociology, anthropology, and cultural studies is that primordial identities are generally ascriptive rather than elective. You were born into it. You may reject it politically, celebrate it culturally, or even choose not to mention it. But your decision to speak out – or remain silent – ​​does not change the historical facts of your ancestors.

An Igbo father remains an Igbo father, whether his son admits it or not. Likewise, if Rotimi Amaechi is ethnically Igbo, then no amount of political strife can make him more Igbo. And if he is not Igbo, no amount of recognition or political support can make him Igbo. Identity is not given through applause.

Amaechi’s strange statement puts forward an extraordinary proposition. This shows that identity is conditional, that a person can renounce his or her ethnicity until political recognition is restored. By this logic, ethnicity is no longer an inherited reality, but rather a political alliance.

Yesterday, Amaechi was Igbo. Today, he doesn’t. Tomorrow, he might be Igbo again – provided enough people clap. It’s not an identity. That is political branding. This is an identity crisis, possibly caused by dissociative identity disorder.

Perhaps what Amaechi wanted to say was not that he was no longer Igbo, but rather that he no longer felt accepted by many Igbo people. And I must admit that I am one of the Igbo who views Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi as a politically transactional Igbo, just as I view Nyesom Wike.

But acceptance and identity are very different propositions. Acceptance is social. Identity is historical. Acceptance may change. Identity usually does not. Confusing the two breeds intellectual laziness and results in personal and social chaos.

Ironically, Amaechi spent decades presenting himself as one of Nigeria’s leading politicians without openly questioning his ethnic identity. Only now, amid political realignment and calculations about future electoral alliances, identity suddenly seems negotiable. This certainly invites skepticism. If identities can be activated or suspended by political whim and convenience, then they cease to be identities at all. This becomes a strategy.

From the perspective of identity theory, identity has many dimensions. These include civic, professional, religious, political, and national identities. It may develop throughout life. But primordial identities – family lineage, ancestry, and ethnic origin – operate differently. Generally this is inherited and not negotiated. A person may reject it, belittle it, or refuse to celebrate it. But we can’t eliminate him just because his confession was kept secret.

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Rotimi Amaechi’s statement is not what it says about the Igbo people, but rather what it says about the Igbo people. A confident identity does not wait for public validation before asserting itself. People who feel secure in their identity do not put their ancestors on political trial. If Rotimi Amaechi truly believes that others must first allow him to identify himself, he has revealed not an Igbo problem but a deep personal uncertainty about identity itself.

Ethnicity is not a campaign office. This is not a promise. This is not a coalition agreement. And of course it is not assistance given or withdrawn by a community according to the election calendar. A politician can negotiate alliances. A statesman can negotiate policy. Yet no serious researcher of identity would argue that descent itself is negotiable.

Before asking Nigerians to entrust him with the office of Vice President, Rotimi Amaechi may need to first resolve the deep uncertainty he has publicly expressed about his identity. Leadership begins with self-knowledge. A person who is unsure of who he is cannot easily inspire confidence that he knows what he stands for. Identity is the foundation on which values, judgment, consistency, and leadership are built.

When a community leader declares that he will identify as Igbo only if the Igbo first admits it, he raises questions that go far beyond ethnicity. He invites you to examine your understanding of identity. Is identity an inherited reality or a political reward? Is ancestry a historical fact or a certificate issued based on popular consent? If a seasoned politician at the age of sixty-one still considers fundamental aspects of himself to be dependent on the validation of others, Nigerians are right to question what other beliefs might also be subject to political negotiation.

The office of Vice President carries enormous constitutional responsibilities. This requires steadiness, clarity of purpose, and a sense of security towards oneself. Someone who is unsure about the most basic question – “Who am I?” – risks bringing that uncertainty into the exercise of public office. A person who confuses identity may also confuse responsibility, loyalty, principles, and goals. This nation deserves a leader whose beliefs are firm, not a leader whose self-definition seems to fluctuate with the political winds.

Mr Amaechi owes Nigerian society an explanation – not because anyone else has the authority to acknowledge or deny his ethnicity, but because he chooses to present his identity as conditional. Before seeking the confidence of more than two hundred million Nigerians, Amaechi must first demonstrate confidence in himself. A leader who needs public permission to acknowledge his ancestry may have difficulty convincing the public that he has the clarity and fortitude of character needed to lead a complex and divided country.

Mr. Amaechi’s statement also has implications beyond his own political fate. This will certainly cast a shadow over the candidates he is now fighting for for national office. Over the years, political opponents have raised questions – both fairly and unfairly – about Atiku Abubakar’s origins and ancestry. These claims are still a matter of public controversy and are not established facts, and it is not my purpose here to adjudicate them. The point is different.

In politics, perception is often more important than reality. A presidential ticket already burdened by repeated public debates over the identity of a candidate can barely get his running mate to declare publicly that he will identify as Igbo only if the Igbo first admits it. Intentional or not, Amaechi’s statement introduced an entirely new and unnecessary identity controversy into a campaign that was already facing enough political challenges.

Elections are ultimately a struggle for public trust. Voters expect clarity, steadiness and confidence from those seeking the highest office in the land. A pairing whose main characters are associated – one through a long-standing public controversy and the other through his own words – with unresolved questions about the risk of identities seen to be disrupted by issues that should never have been issues. Nigeria needs leaders whose identities are clear enough so that voters can focus on their ideas, competencies and vision for the country, not on debates about who they are.

By: Vitus Ozoke