National anthems serve as a powerful expression of national identity and a way to evoke a sense of belonging and shared history among the peoples of a nation. The recent scene at Brentford Stadium London revealed a twist in that profound truth that governments worldwide would do well to understand respect cannot be mandated — it must be earned. When some Nigerian fans refused to sing their country’s official anthem “Nigeria We Hail Thee” and instead belted out the former anthem “Arise O Compatriots,” they demonstrated that the true power of national symbols lies not in forced official designation but in genuine emotional connection.
This was beyond defiance: it was an act of grand disrespect and national disgrace, for which there is no justifiable excuse. But it also exemplified the deeper meaning behind honouring national symbols — active engagement with what these symbols represent rather than passive compliance with government directives. Paradoxically, the fans’ behaviour illustrated that national symbols derive their legitimacy from the people’s authentic attachment to them, not from bureaucratic decisions made in government offices.
The Nigerian government’s 2024 decision to revert to the older anthem did not acknowledge this fundamental principle. National symbols — whether anthems, flags, mottos and pledges — function as vessels of collective identity and shared values. If and when these symbols fail to resonate with citizens’ lived experiences and aspirations, they become hollow ceremonies rather than meaningful expressions of nationhood.
The controversy highlights how national symbols should serve as dynamic spaces for democratic engagement rather than static relics demanding unquestioning reverence. Prof. Father Anthony Akinwale’s observation that both anthems capture different aspects of Nigerian identity reflects the complex nature of national belonging. (Some differences may be generational.) A truly inclusive national symbol must accommodate diverse perspectives while fostering unity around shared core values.
The fans’ preference for “Arise O Compatriots” may not merely be nostalgic — it represented their assessment of which anthem better captured their understanding of Nigerian identity and aspirations. Their discernment demonstrates sophisticated civic engagement, where citizens actively evaluate whether official symbols authentically represent their collective values and experiences. The situation challenges the conventional approach to symbol respect that emphasises blind adherence to protocols.
As earlier noted, there is no excuse for disrespecting national symbols, because of perceived forced compliance. It undermines national pride by severing the authentic emotional bonds that make citizenship meaningful. When we witness genuine disrespect, it triggers defensive reactions that become divisive because these symbols carry the weight of collective identity. No matter which anthem pleases any individual or group, it is the highest form of rudeness, ignorance, or immaturity to become disruptive, since people have the choice to be silent for whatever reason.
True respect for national symbols requires citizens to engage thoughtfully with what these symbols represent, ensuring they continue to serve their fundamental purpose of fostering genuine national unity. When symbols become disconnected from popular sentiment, they risk becoming instruments of division rather than unity.
The emotional attachment citizens develop to specific versions of national symbols reflects the subjective nature of patriotism itself. What resonates as authentic national expression for one generation may feel hollow or outdated to another. This doesn’t represent declining patriotism but rather evolving national consciousness that demands symbols grow with the nation they represent.
The Nigerian example also demonstrates how symbol disrespect — or perceived disrespect — can actually strengthen rather than weaken national pride when it stems from principled engagement with national identity. The fans weren’t rejecting Nigeria; they were asserting their vision of what Nigeria should represent. Their refusal to sing the official anthem while enthusiastically embracing the alternative reflected deep patriotic feeling, not its absence.
This distinction matters profoundly for how democracies approach symbol reverence. Forcing compliance with symbols that lack authentic popular connection ultimately weakens rather than strengthens national unity. Citizens who feel compelled to perform respect for symbols they find meaningless or inappropriate develop cynical relationships with national identity itself.
The broader lesson extends beyond Nigeria to any nation grappling with questions of symbol significance. National symbols must continuously earn their status through demonstrated relevance to citizens’ evolving understanding of national identity. This requires governments to remain responsive to popular sentiment about symbolic representation rather than treating such matters as settled once established.
Moreover, the incident reveals how authentic respect for national symbols sometimes requires the courage to acknowledge when they need revision or replacement. The Nigerian government’s decision to revert to an earlier anthem, responding to demands by a segment of the population, demonstrated mature democratic leadership that prioritises genuine national unity over bureaucratic pride.
The true test of national symbols is not whether citizens dutifully perform prescribed behaviours but whether these symbols inspire genuine emotional connection and shared commitment to national values. When symbols achieve this authentic resonance, respect follows naturally. When they do not, all the legal requirements and social pressure in the world cannot manufacture the genuine patriotic feeling that makes national symbols truly powerful.
Without endorsing the collective rudeness of the Nigerian fans at Brentford, the anthem controversy ultimately teaches us that getting all the people’s buy-in is essential to ensure that our symbols remain worthy of respect.
Ultimately, while the national anthem is not a personal thing for anyone to decide which to sing, it is also meet and proper for government to carry citizens along and above all, adopt policies that would boost the values and promises espoused in the anthem.
