By Akin Samuel KAYODE
There is perhaps no more fitting metaphor for the recent political conduct of Babachir David Lawal than a barber’s chair. It turns left. It turns right. It swings backwards. It leans forwards. It rotates endlessly in response to every movement around it. Yet after all the turning, spinning, and repositioning, it remains exactly where it started. The appearance of motion is unmistakable, but the evidence of progress is remarkably difficult to find. Increasingly, that metaphor appears to capture the political journey of Babachir Lawal with striking accuracy.
What makes the comparison even more compelling is that a barber’s chair does not determine its own direction. Others turn it. Others position it. Others decide where it faces. It moves constantly, yet seldom under its own independent momentum. For many Nigerians observing Babachir Lawal’s political trajectory over the years, this imagery has become difficult to ignore. There has been movement, certainly. There has been repositioning, undoubtedly. There has been no shortage of political commentary. Yet after years of shifting alliances, changing loyalties, and recurring grievances, Nigerians are still searching for a clearly defined destination.
Politics, after all, is not a competition in movement. It is a test of purpose. It is not measured by how often one changes position, but by whether those positions advance a coherent vision. It is not defined by the frequency of political interventions, but by the value they add to national discourse and democratic development.
This is where the Babachir Lawal story becomes increasingly difficult to understand.
For several years now, Nigerians have watched him move from one political platform to another, from one alliance to another, and from one political disagreement to another. One day he is aligned with a political tendency. Another day he is distancing himself from it. One moment he is championing a cause. The next moment he is questioning the very direction of that cause. The movements are frequent. The transitions are numerous. The dissatisfaction is almost constant.
The pattern became particularly evident during the events leading to the 2023 presidential election. Following the emergence of Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress and the selection of Kashim Shettima as running mate, Babachir Lawal became one of the most outspoken critics of the ticket. He repeatedly argued that Tinubu would not become President and presented that prediction with unmistakable confidence.
The prediction was clear.
The conviction was firm.
The certainty was absolute.
Yet when Nigerians cast their votes and the constitutional processes eventually reached their conclusion, Bola Ahmed Tinubu emerged as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The prediction failed.
The outcome differed from the expectation.
But the dissatisfaction remained.
Ordinarily, one might expect such an experience to encourage reflection. Politics has a way of humbling even the most confident observers. It reminds politicians that no individual possesses a monopoly on wisdom, foresight, or political judgement. Yet instead of producing a period of reassessment, the episode appeared to become merely another stop in an ongoing journey of political discontent.
Then came the coalition movement.
Once again, Babachir Lawal associated himself with a political project presented as an alternative to the status quo. Once again, hopes were raised. Once again, expectations were created. Once again, a democratic process was conducted.
And once again, the result proved unsatisfactory.
Following the emergence of Atiku Abubakar as the preferred candidate of the African Democratic Congress, objections surfaced. Allegations followed. Questions were raised. The familiar language of dissatisfaction returned.
At this point, however, the issue is no longer Atiku Abubakar.
The issue is no longer Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The issue is no longer the APC.
The issue is no longer the ADC.
The issue is the pattern.
When dissatisfaction becomes the recurring outcome of virtually every political journey, reasonable people are entitled to ask whether the problem lies with the destination or with the traveller himself.
This is the paradox at the heart of Babachir Lawal’s politics.
The more he moves, the less clear his destination becomes.
The more he rotates, the less certain his direction appears.
The more alliances he embraces, the more temporary those alliances seem to be.
The more political roads he travels, the more Nigerians are compelled to ask where exactly he intends to arrive.
That is why the barber’s chair metaphor resonates so strongly.
The tragedy of a barber’s chair is not that it moves. The tragedy is that after all the movement, it remains rooted to the same spot. It generates motion without momentum. It creates activity without advancement. It turns repeatedly without ever truly travelling.
Likewise, after years of political repositioning, shifting loyalties, and recurring grievances, Nigerians are entitled to ask what lasting national achievement has emerged from all the rotation.
What has been built?
What institution has been strengthened?
What national cause has been advanced?
What democratic principle has been deepened?
What enduring legacy has been created?
These are not hostile questions.
They are necessary questions.
In a democracy, public figures who seek to shape national discourse must be prepared to have their records examined and their contributions assessed. Political relevance cannot be measured solely by the ability to criticise. It must also be measured by the ability to contribute.
Unfortunately, one of the greatest misconceptions in modern politics is the belief that criticism and contribution are the same thing.
They are not.
A politician may criticise endlessly and still contribute very little.
A public figure may oppose every development and still offer no meaningful alternative.
A commentator may dominate headlines and yet leave no lasting impact on the challenges confronting ordinary citizens.
This distinction is especially important today because Nigeria is facing challenges far greater than the grievances of any individual politician.
Across the country, families are struggling with economic hardship. Small businesses are fighting for survival. Young people are searching desperately for opportunities. Communities continue to grapple with insecurity, uncertainty, and declining confidence in public institutions.
These are the issues that occupy the minds of ordinary Nigerians.
The trader in Lagos is not losing sleep over elite political disagreements.
The farmer in Adamawa is not preoccupied with personal disappointments arising from party primaries.
The unemployed graduate seeking a better future is not concerned about which political heavyweight feels aggrieved this week.
Nigerians want solutions.
They want leadership.
They want vision.
They want results.
Against such a backdrop, perpetual political dissatisfaction offers little value.
Nigeria’s tragedy is not a shortage of politicians who know how to complain. The country has never lacked critics, commentators, or professional dissenters. What Nigeria desperately lacks are political actors prepared to remain steadfast to a cause, build enduring institutions, unite diverse interests, and accept that leadership is measured not by perpetual protest but by tangible achievement. Complaints may generate headlines, but they do not generate progress.
The danger of endless rotation is that it can eventually become a substitute for purpose. A politician who is constantly changing direction may create the illusion of relevance, but relevance is not measured by movement. It is measured by destination. It is measured by results. It is measured by whether one’s political journey leaves behind something of lasting value to society. Without that, endless movement becomes little more than a performance.
This is perhaps the deepest contradiction in the Babachir Lawal story. The more he rotates from one position to another, the more difficult it becomes to identify the enduring principle that guides those movements. Conviction provides direction. Purpose provides consistency. Leadership provides clarity. When all three become obscured by recurring dissatisfaction, the public is left with questions rather than confidence.
Nigerians are increasingly becoming a politically conscious people. They have learnt through experience to distinguish between those who build and those who merely react. They know the difference between leaders who are motivated by a vision and politicians who appear to be motivated by grievances. They understand that a nation cannot be transformed by perpetual dissatisfaction, no matter how eloquently it is expressed.
Perhaps the greatest irony in all of this is that Babachir Lawal increasingly presents himself as a defender of political integrity, accountability, and democratic principles. Every citizen has the right to advocate for such values. Indeed, democracy depends upon them.
However, credibility is strengthened by consistency.
Nigerians have not forgotten the controversy that became one of the defining political scandals of the Buhari administration, the so-called grasscutter affair. The controversy generated national outrage, prompted investigations, dominated public discussion, and eventually contributed to Babachir Lawal’s removal from office as Secretary to the Government of the Federation.
While subsequent legal proceedings resulted in his discharge and acquittal, public memory operates differently from judicial processes. Political credibility is shaped not only by court judgements but also by public perception, personal conduct, and historical experience.
That reality makes it difficult for many Nigerians to accept unquestioningly the posture of moral superiority that often accompanies his political interventions.
Leadership demands more than criticism.
It demands consistency.
It demands self-awareness.
It demands the ability to apply the same standards to oneself that one applies to others.
Above all, it demands the maturity to distinguish between personal disappointment and institutional failure.
As Nigeria moves steadily towards another important electoral cycle, citizens will increasingly separate those who generate noise from those who generate solutions. They will distinguish between politicians who specialise in grievance and leaders who specialise in nation-building. They will distinguish between movement and momentum.
That distinction matters because nations cannot be built on perpetual dissatisfaction.
They cannot be governed through endless political grievances.
They cannot progress through constant rotation.
At some point, movement must lead somewhere.
At some point, criticism must produce an alternative.
At some point, political activity must translate into national value.
History is rarely kind to those who spend their political lives opposing one destination after another without presenting a credible destination of their own. It remembers those who built bridges where others erected barriers. It remembers those who offered solutions where others offered complaints. It remembers those who accepted political setbacks with maturity and returned with stronger ideas rather than stronger grievances.
The real challenge confronting Babachir “Barber Chair” Lawal is therefore not whether he can continue rotating from one political position to another. The challenge is whether, after all the rotations, he can point Nigerians to a destination that justifies the journey.
That is the challenge confronting Babachir “Barber Chair” Lawal today.
The defining question is no longer whether he supports Atiku Abubakar or opposes him. It is no longer whether he agrees with Bola Ahmed Tinubu or disagrees with him. It is not even about which political platform he chooses tomorrow.
The defining question is far simpler and far more consequential.
After years of political rotation, what lasting destination has Babachir Lawal actually reached?
History will not judge political actors by how many times they changed direction. It will not remember them for the number of alliances they joined or abandoned. It will not celebrate them for the volume of their complaints or the frequency of their objections.
History remembers builders.
History remembers problem-solvers.
History remembers those who strengthened institutions, inspired confidence, and left their nation better than they found it.
And that is the unanswered question hanging over Babachir “Barber Chair” Lawal’s politics today.
After all the turning.
After all the repositioning.
After all the objections.
After all the noise.
Where exactly has the journey led?
A barber’s chair can spend an entire day turning in every conceivable direction and still remain rooted to the same spot. Nigeria cannot afford such politics. The nation needs direction, purpose, consistency, and leadership. It needs movement that leads somewhere. It needs momentum rather than motion. It needs builders rather than perpetual critics.
For while endless rotation may keep a barber’s chair occupied, it does absolutely nothing to move a nation forward. And that, perhaps more than any speech, accusation, or political quarrel, is the enduring lesson Nigerians should take from this saga.
ASK writes from Asokoro, FCT, Abuja.
Akin Samuel KAYODE.
Member,
The Narrative Force(TNF).
02062026.
