Cabals, Power, and the Nigerian Presidency: Separating History from Rumor

In recent times, rumors have circulated suggesting that cabals exist within the Asiwaju-led government, allegedly controlling narratives, decisions, and even what the president sees or hears about happenings in Nigeria. According to this line of thought, these supposed power blocs are said to “television” or filter national realities to the president.

I disagree with this narrative.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is not a push-around president. He is widely known as a reader, a political thinker, and a man deeply aware of both national and global affairs. He reads daily, engages briefs critically, and understands the weight of the office he occupies. The idea that shadowy groups can hijack his will or impose decisions against his own judgment misunderstands both the man and the presidency.

Even if advisory circles or influential figures exist—as they do in every government—they do not amount to a cabal in the true sense of the word, nor can they override the president’s personal convictions or strategic choices.

To understand why this distinction matters, we must return to the origin and true meaning of “cabal.”

The Origin of the Word “Cabal”

The modern political meaning of cabal dates back to 17th-century England, under King Charles II. At the time, a small group of powerful ministers effectively controlled state affairs behind closed doors. Their surnames were:

• Clifford
• Arlington
• Buckingham
• Ashley (Cooper)
• Lauderdale

Coincidentally, the first letters of their names spelled C-A-B-A-L. Critics of the government used this acronym to accuse them of operating secretly, manipulating power, and sidelining public accountability. From that moment in history, cabal came to mean a secretive clique that plots and governs behind the scenes, often against the visible authority of leadership.

Although the word is sometimes linked to the Hebrew Kabbalah (meaning “received tradition” or hidden knowledge), its negative political meaning is firmly rooted in this English episode.

Why the Nigerian Situation Is Different

The historical cabal under King Charles II functioned in place of effective leadership. Power drifted from the throne to a closed group that acted independently and covertly.

That context does not apply to Nigeria today.

President Tinubu is not detached from governance, nor is he insulated from reality. Policy decisions, reforms, and political choices consistently bear his ideological imprint and long-standing political philosophy. Advisory inputs do not equate to control, and influence does not mean domination.

Calling every inner circle, adviser, or power broker a “cabal” waters down the word’s true meaning and turns a historically precise term into a political buzzword.

Conclusion

Yes, governments everywhere have advisers.

Yes, influence exists in politics.

But a cabal, by definition, is a secret group that overrides authority.

In contrast, the Nigerian president remains firmly in charge of his decisions. He is informed, intentional, and fully aware of the challenges facing the country. Rumors of cabals may make for dramatic commentary, but history reminds us that real cabals operate in the absence of strong leadership—not under it.

Understanding words, their origins, and their proper use helps us move debates from speculation to substance.