What Israel and the United States reveal about political power, institutional accountability and the limits of religious symbolism in governance.
A nation cannot pray its way out of injustice, govern its way out of accountability or build prosperity on promises that its institutions cannot defend. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has returned from Mecca after performing Umrah and offering prayers for Nigeria’s peace, security, unity and prosperity. His pilgrimage is a personal expression of religious devotion, and every citizen has a right to respect that. But Nigeria’s greatest challenge is not the absence of prayers for its survival. It is the persistent gap between the promises of leadership and the realities of governance. The country needs more than presidential supplications. It needs truth, transparency, justice and fairness translated into public policy and institutional action.
The distinction between faith and public responsibility must not be lost. Prayer can inspire leadership, but it cannot replace it. Religious devotion may strengthen a president’s personal convictions, but constitutional obligations define the responsibilities of his office. Nigerians are entitled to ask a difficult question: after seeking divine intervention, what practical steps will the President take to address the conditions that make such intervention so desperately necessary? The measure of leadership is not simply what a president asks God to do for his country, but what he is prepared to do for its people. The presidency is not a pulpit, and the machinery of government cannot run on religious symbolism. It must run on accountability.
A comparative examination of Israel, the United States and Nigeria offers useful lessons about the relationship between political authority and institutional restraint. Their political systems, histories and national circumstances are different, and neither Israel nor America should be presented as a flawless democratic model. Yet their constitutional arrangements provide important examples of how public power can be scrutinised and contested.
Consider Israel. Its parliamentary system places the government under the authority of the Knesset, where parliamentary groups can initiate motions of no confidence and question the government’s policies and conduct. Its State Comptroller also provides an institutional mechanism for auditing public administration and examining government performance. These arrangements do not eliminate political controversy or guarantee institutional independence. Indeed, debates over judicial independence have exposed deep divisions within Israeli society. But the underlying principle remains significant: political authority must face institutional scrutiny. Leadership is a public trust, not a private inheritance.
The United States offers another perspective. Its constitutional framework divides federal authority among the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Congress exercises oversight, controls federal appropriations and investigates matters of public concern. The judiciary interprets the law and can review the constitutionality of government action. These checks and balances have never made American democracy immune to political polarisation, executive excesses or institutional conflict. However, they establish an important constitutional principle: the presidency is powerful, but it is not sovereign above the law. The office is subject to the Constitution, and its occupant remains answerable to the institutions that sustain the republic.
Nigeria has comparable constitutional foundations. Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1999 Constitution vest legislative, executive and judicial powers in separate arms of government. The National Assembly has oversight responsibilities, while the judiciary is constitutionally empowered to interpret and apply the law. Nigeria does not lack institutions on paper. Its more difficult challenge is ensuring that those institutions exercise their powers independently, consistently and without political interference. The gap between constitutional design and institutional performance remains a central concern in the country’s democratic development.
The evidence deserves attention. The World Justice Project’s 2026 Rule of Law Index places Nigeria 120th among 143 countries, with a score of 0.40. Its assessment gives Nigeria a particularly troubling position on order and security, ranking the country 142nd globally in that category. Freedom House’s 2026 assessment classifies Nigeria as Partly Free, awarding it 44 out of 100. Its report identifies persistent concerns involving corruption, electoral integrity, security, civil liberties and the functioning of government. These assessments are not the final measure of Nigeria’s potential, but they provide evidence of the institutional challenges that demand urgent attention.
This is where the Tinubu administration must move beyond declarations of good intentions. Transparency must mean that citizens can examine how public resources are collected, allocated and spent. Justice must not become a selective instrument reserved for political opponents while allies enjoy preferential treatment. Anti-corruption enforcement must be impartial, evidence-based and consistent. Public appointments must serve national competence and constitutional fairness, not merely political calculations. The National Assembly must exercise meaningful oversight, the judiciary must remain independent, and security institutions must protect citizens without discrimination. Above all, government must recognise that public office is a responsibility to be discharged, not a privilege to be celebrated.
The comparison with Israel and the United States should therefore not become an exercise in idealising foreign governments. Both countries have serious democratic challenges, political divisions and contested institutional decisions. Their relevance lies in the continuing importance of institutional checks, public scrutiny and constitutional accountability. Nigeria must develop these principles within its own political and constitutional realities. It cannot import democracy as a finished product; it must build democratic habits through credible institutions, responsible leadership and an informed citizenry.
There is also a deeper constitutional question. Nigeria is a religiously diverse country. Its citizens profess different faiths and some profess none. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and prohibits the adoption of a state religion. A president may pray according to his faith, but he must govern for every Nigerian, regardless of religious affiliation. His responsibility extends beyond the mosque, the church, the party and the political constituency. It encompasses the entire republic. National leadership must unite citizens through equal protection, justice and the impartial administration of public affairs.
Mecca is a place of worship, not a substitute for the institutions of state. A prayer mat cannot perform the work of the National Assembly. Supplication cannot replace judicial independence. Religious devotion cannot audit public expenditure, secure vulnerable communities or guarantee equal treatment before the law. These are the duties of government, and no spiritual journey can relieve a president of them.
Tinubu has prayed for Nigeria. The country must now see the corresponding commitment in governance. The journey from Mecca to Abuja should be more than a return to the seat of power; it should be a return to the unfinished work of national responsibility. The challenge is not to choose between faith and good governance, but to ensure that personal faith inspires public integrity. Nigeria needs leaders who can kneel in humility before God and stand in accountability before the people.
A nation is not measured by how often its leaders pray for change, but by how faithfully they work to make change possible.
– Inah Boniface Ocholi writes from Ayah – Igalamela/Odolu LGA, Kogi state.
08152094428 (SMS Only)
Views: 1
