Nigeria may be watching the return of a political strategy it thought it had seen before: put men in episcopal robes around a presidential candidate, attach the word “bishop” to their names, and create the impression that the Christian community has spoken.
This time, the central figure is Archbishop Prof. Leonard Bature Kawas, President-General of the Charismatic Bishops Conference of Nigeria (CBCN), whose organisation has endorsed President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for another term in 2027.
Kawas made the declaration at the CBCN's 2026 synod in Abuja, saying the conference had examined Tinubu's administration and would continue to support him. Government officials, including Secretary to the Government of the Federation George Akume and Information Minister Mohammed Idris, attended the event.
But the political significance of the endorsement goes beyond Kawas or the CBCN.
It raises a much bigger question:
Who exactly gets to speak for Nigerian Christians during an election?
And why does the sight of men in elaborate episcopal robes repeatedly become part of the political presentation whenever a controversial presidential ticket needs religious legitimacy?
The ghost of 2023 has returned
In 2022, when the APC unveiled Kashim Shettima as Tinubu's running mate, the party's Muslim-Muslim ticket generated enormous controversy.
Then came the photographs.
Men dressed in clerical garments appeared at the event, creating the impression that Christian religious leaders were present and comfortable with the controversial ticket.
The problem was that recognised Christian organisations quickly questioned who these men were.
The Catholic Church said the individuals wearing Catholic-style vestments were not Catholic bishops. Christian groups demanded that the identities and affiliations of the supposed bishops be disclosed. Reports also emerged alleging that some of the men had been recruited and paid to appear at the event.
The episode became one of the most memorable examples of political optics masquerading as religious endorsement during the 2023 election cycle.
The lesson should have been obvious:
If a politician wants Christian endorsement, find genuine Christian leaders.
Do not manufacture the appearance of one.
Now the robes are back
Four years later, the political environment is different.
Tinubu is no longer trying to defend a Muslim-Muslim presidential ticket as a candidate.
He is an incumbent seeking another term.
And once again, Nigerians are being shown a gathering of men described as bishops, wearing elaborate episcopal regalia, while a political endorsement is announced.
Parallel Facts questioned the appearance of bishops at the 2026 CBCN event, particularly the use of mitres, copes and other ceremonial vestments at what was a conference rather than a conventional worship service.
That observation alone does not prove that the men are fake.
But it raises a legitimate question about religious symbolism.
Because in politics, appearance is not decoration.
Appearance is messaging.
A room filled with men wearing bishop's robes communicates something to the television cameras and social-media audience.
It tells Nigerians:
Christian leaders are with us.
The Church supports this candidate.
The religious controversy is over.
Tinubu has Christian backing.
But does it?
A conference is not the same thing as Nigerian Christianity
This is where Nigerians need to be particularly careful.
The CBCN is a religious organisation. Its members are entitled to participate in politics as individual citizens and to endorse whichever candidate they choose.
Kawas is equally entitled to support Tinubu.
There is nothing inherently undemocratic about that.
The problem begins when the endorsement of a particular organisation is presented—explicitly or implicitly—as though it represents the Nigerian Christian community as a whole.
It does not.
Nigeria has Catholics, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, African Instituted Churches and numerous independent charismatic ministries.
The Christian Association of Nigeria itself is structured around major Christian blocs and represents a much broader institutional constituency.
So when a relatively specific organisation calls a press conference and announces:
“We endorse Tinubu,”
the honest headline should be:
“Charismatic Bishops Conference endorses Tinubu.”
Not:
“Nigerian bishops endorse Tinubu.”
The difference is enormous.
Who are these bishops?
This is the question Nigerians should be asking without fear.
Not:
“Are they Christians?”
Not:
“Do they support Tinubu?”
But:
What institution consecrated them?
What church do they lead?
What denomination do they represent?
Who recognises their episcopal office?
What does “bishop” mean within their ecclesiastical structure?
Those are legitimate questions in a country where the title “bishop” has become increasingly common across independent and charismatic religious organisations.
CBCN says it has hundreds of “canonical” bishops in Nigeria and an international presence. Kawas himself has publicly described the organisation as having members across 52 countries and 950 “canonical” bishops in Nigeria.
That is a claim that deserves examination rather than automatic acceptance or dismissal.
And this is where the debate should become more serious than social-media arguments about robes.
The difference between a bishop and a bishop
In Nigeria, the word bishop can mean very different things depending on the church tradition.
In some established denominations, becoming a bishop involves a formal ecclesiastical process, defined doctrine, institutional structures and recognition within a historic hierarchy.
In independent charismatic churches, the structure can be completely different.
A pastor may establish a ministry.
The ministry may develop its own hierarchy.
The pastor may eventually be consecrated or designated a bishop within that organisation.
There is nothing automatically illegitimate about an independent church creating its own ecclesiastical structure.
But the public should not be expected to treat every person carrying the title “bishop” as institutionally equivalent to a Catholic, Anglican or other denominational bishop.
The title alone does not settle the question of authority.
That distinction is crucial.
The politics of religious endorsement
Tinubu's supporters have every right to celebrate the CBCN endorsement.
Indeed, the Federal Ministry of Information reported the endorsement as a major development and quoted Kawas defending the administration's record on religious balance and appointments.
Kawas argued that the President had surprised the bishops by appointing Christians to important positions.
He specifically mentioned George Akume as Secretary to the Government of the Federation and Nyesom Wike as Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, among other appointments.
The CBCN's argument is therefore clear:
Tinubu began with a Muslim-Muslim ticket but, according to the group, governed in a way that demonstrated religious balance.
That is a political argument.
And it should be debated as one.
But turning that argument into a spectacle of episcopal endorsement risks confusing religious authority with political persuasion.
This is where the 2023 comparison becomes uncomfortable
The 2022 “fake bishops” controversy was damaging because it appeared that religious symbolism was being used to solve a political problem.
Tinubu and Shettima faced a deeply controversial question:
How can a Muslim-Muslim ticket claim adequate Christian representation in a religiously sensitive country?
Instead of allowing the political argument to stand on its own, the appearance of men dressed as Christian bishops created an extraordinary visual counter-message.
Critics immediately asked:
Who are these people?
That question never disappeared.
In fact, it became a symbol of the desperation surrounding the ticket.
The episode was serious enough that major media outlets and Christian groups questioned the identities and affiliations of those present.
Now, in 2026, Nigerians are again confronted with images of men in episcopal regalia at a Tinubu-related event and another declaration of Christian religious support.
Even if the individuals involved are genuine members of their own religious organisations, the optics inevitably revive the memory of 2022.
The real deception may not be the robes
Perhaps the deeper problem is not whether every man wearing a mitre is fake.
The deeper problem is what Nigerians are being encouraged to believe the robes represent.
A photograph can be more powerful than a paragraph.
A room full of bishops looks like consensus.
A presidential endorsement from a religious conference looks like divine validation.
And when the images circulate on Facebook, X, TikTok and WhatsApp, the details disappear.
Nobody sees the constitutional structure of the organisation.
Nobody checks its membership.
Nobody asks which denomination each bishop belongs to.
The caption simply says:
“Bishops endorse Tinubu.”
And the political message has already done its work.
Religion should not become campaign decoration
Nigeria's politicians understand the emotional power of religion.
They understand that a Christian cleric standing beside a politician communicates something different from a party spokesman standing beside the same politician.
The cleric carries moral symbolism.
The robe carries institutional symbolism.
The title “bishop” carries spiritual symbolism.
Combine all three with a presidential candidate and the result is powerful political theatre.
That is why the public must demand transparency.
If a religious body endorses Tinubu, publish the organisation's name.
If it claims hundreds of bishops, identify the bishops.
If it claims international membership, explain its institutional structure.
If it says it represents Christians, explain which Christians.
And if it is simply an independent charismatic association, say so.
There is nothing embarrassing about being an independent religious organisation.
What is dangerous is allowing Nigerians to assume that one organisation speaks for everybody.
Kawas may be genuine. The political message still deserves scrutiny.
There is an important distinction that should not be lost in the anger.
Calling Kawas or every CBCN member a “fake bishop” as an established fact goes beyond what the available evidence proves.
Current reporting identifies Kawas as the President-General of the CBCN, and official government reporting describes the organisation as a legitimate participant in the 2026 synod.
The stronger criticism is therefore not:
“Kawas is definitely a fake bishop.”
The stronger criticism is:
“Why should Nigerians accept a political endorsement from a private charismatic religious organisation as evidence that Nigerian Christians have endorsed Tinubu?”
That question is much harder to dismiss.
And it is much more important.
Nigeria has seen this movie before
The 2023 controversy taught Nigerians that religious imagery can be manipulated for political purposes.
The lesson should not be forgotten simply because the political circumstances have changed.
If Tinubu has delivered enough to deserve another term, his campaign should make that case with roads, jobs, inflation figures, security statistics, investment numbers, power generation, education outcomes and other measurable achievements.
He does not need rented religious legitimacy.
And if Christian leaders genuinely believe his government deserves another four years, they should be free to say so.
But Nigerians should also be free to ask:
Which Christian leaders?
Representing whom?
Under what institution?
And on whose authority?
That is not an attack on Christianity.
It is not an attack on bishops.
It is not an attack on Tinubu.
It is a demand for political honesty.
Because after the 2023 “fake bishops” controversy, Nigerians should have learned one simple lesson:
A man wearing a bishop's robe is not automatically a spokesman for Nigerian Christianity.
And a conference full of bishops is not automatically the voice of the Church.
In a democracy, endorsement should be transparent.
Religious authority should be identifiable.
And political theatre should never be mistaken for national consensus.
Comments
Post a Comment