By Sankofaonline : November 7 , 2025 .
Recent discourse within a cultural association has exposed a troubling contradiction, one that threatens the very foundation of communal unity.
The invocation of the phrase “THE EVIL THAT MEN DO, LIVES AFTER THEM” was not a reflection on history, but a weaponized lament, cloaked in moral outrage yet steeped in personal grievance. To decry division while simultaneously sowing it is not principled dissent, it is hypocrisy in full bloom.
What began as a denunciation of bigotry quickly devolved into a bitter, targeted rebuke rooted in a minority opinion unwilling to accept democratic consensus. The accusation that constitutional amendments , particularly the introduction of term limits for a ceremonial traditional leadership, were the product of a secretive plot is not only inflammatory but demonstrably false. The record is clear: these changes were ratified by a majority vote, shaped not by schemers but by a collective will seeking fairness and future opportunity.
The former chair of the drafting committee affirmed that the term limit proposal did not originate from the committee itself. It was a call for inclusivity, a chance for younger voices to rise, and a rejection of entrenched privilege. To dismiss this as corruption is to reject the very principles of democratic governance.
Most alarming is the posture of moral absolutism: “I will NEVER compromise my integrity for a CORRUPTED majority decision.” This is not the language of leadership, it is the rhetoric of isolation. It demands that the collective bend to one individual’s worldview. Such a stance undermines the essence of communal life, where decisions are debated, voted upon, and respected, even when they do not align with personal convictions.
The amendment to expand eligibility for traditional leadership beyond paternal lineage was a bold and necessary step toward inclusivity. It opened doors for committed members of diverse backgrounds to serve with honor. To label this progress as “evil” is to cling to a discriminatory past. One elder’s response,“If this is evil, may it live after us”, was not sarcasm, but a profound defense of equity.
It is deeply troubling when elders, entrusted with the mantle of wisdom, choose instead to weaponize past disagreements, distort democratic outcomes, and stir unrest. Leadership demands humility, not hubris. When disagreement arises, it must be met with dialogue, not defamation. To reject a legitimate process simply because one’s view did not prevail is the true betrayal of unity.
History will not remember who shouted loudest. It will remember who stood firm for integrity, who respected the process, and who chose unity over ego. The path forward is not paved with suspicion, but with a shared commitment to democratic principles. Those resisting this truth must reconsider, not for their own sake, but for the future of the community they claim to serve.
