It is either that British Prime Minister Theresa May is on the verge of divorcing her husband or she is a lesbian even though she is married to a man, Philip.
In either case, the PM might be considering taking a wife from Nigeria or any other Commonwealth country that her ancestors presided over its expropriation and ruination.
Obviously, May is ruing her mistake of ever getting married to a man. She would have preferred to be a lesbian-husband with a wife. Or why is she rhapsodising about the glories of homosexuality?
If May does not hanker after lesbianism, then she should be charged with duplicity directed at sexually perverting millions of other people while she is enjoying being married to a man.
We could see May's duplicity in her proselytising zeal for same-sex marriage while at the same time professing how much she has enjoyed the benefits of the marriages of others.
In an interview with a journalist, May described her not having her own children as "very sad." But she added that the devastation of her childlessness had been assuaged by the consciousness that she was surrounded by nieces and nephews.
Read More: Britain urges Nigeria, others to legalise same-sex marriage
If May is so enamoured of same-sex marriage, why does she feel frustrated that she has no children of her own? And if the parents of her nieces and nephews were homosexuals would they have had those children who now comfort her?
Again, we glean May's humbug from claiming to be a Christian whose pains of childlessness are eased by her Christian faith. Yet, this renegade daughter of a vicar does not adhere to her Christian injunctions that do not permit same-sex marriage.
Apparently, the kind of bible that May reads and on which she builds her Christian faith does not have these: Romans1: 26-28, Mark 10: 6-9 and 1Timothy 1: 8-11.
And if she reads only the Old Testament, these are equally not in her bible: Genesis2: 24, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13.
May has been married for almost 40 years. As a young lady, she did not see the need to marry a woman.
It is now that she is in her sixties that she is preaching the virtues of same-sex marriage.
She seized the opportunity of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Westminster to hector countries that were previously under her ancestors' colonial tyranny on the need for them to make laws to encourage same-sex marriage.
She cautioned them that former British colonial subjects should not continue with the mistake of their previous masters who made laws that were against same-sex marriage.
Of course, May is not the first Western leader to have made this proposal. In fact, there is a scramble for Africa in the 21st century that is not limited to the economic provenance.
The scramble is in the realm of sexual disruption. There is a hot race by Western leaders to see who would be the first to make former colonised subjects to accept same-sex marriage.
Indeed, it has been cited that the refusal of former President Goodluck Jonathan to legitimise same-sex marriage was a major reason the Western powers mustered all their resources to ensure his loss of the 2015 presidential election.
The then United States President Barack Obama became the rallying point for the campaign for the sexual travestisation of Nigerians.
Now that Obama has left office, he now has sufficient time to groom his two daughters on how to maintain their marital homes as lesbian-wives or lesbian-husbands.
Obama failed in his project because Nigeria at that time had a president and a National Assembly that were protective of their cultural heritage. It was the same case in Kenya where Obama also took his campaign.
The challenge for Nigeria and other Commonwealth countries is whether they still have leaders who would resist this pressure.
But here we must be alert to the danger posed by African leaders who are irresistibly seduced by power. They want to stay as long as possible. They want to violate their national constitutions in order to be president for life.
In this case, we must not rule out the possibility of African leaders trading off their pristine sexual ethos in order for Western powers to sustain them in office.
After all, lazy African leaders who are submerged by the saccharine privileges of office and who are bereft of the grand ideas about governance look up to the West to carry their burden of development .
So if this aid is now tied to the acceptance of same-sex-marriage, would African leaders have the courage to resist?
In the long run, it is the citizens and not their leaders who would determine the sexual tone of their societies. This is because no matter how much aid the West gives to African countries, it is not meant to develop them.
There is always a pound of flesh that must be prised from the aid recipient. African leaders must be made to consider home-grown solutions to their own problems.
The Western countries that they run to have their own problems. But they do not run to African leaders to fix them.
Now, same-sex aficionados would be deluded with the notion that they have got a veritable bulwark in May. Nigerians who have not been able to secure the British visa would now think that they have got an opportunity.
They would now recount their persecution at the hands of the state authorities because of their sexual difference, hoping that May would throw the gates of Britain open for them.
It thus becomes necessary for the Nigerian government to strengthen its laws on same-sex marriage.
They should not repudiate them because they are part of the legacies of the Jonathan era that is often disparaged as one of the darkest epochs in the nation's life.
But the homosexuals who have been frenziedly canvassing their sexual right since the exit of Jonathan have the option of quietly engaging in their sexual perversions.
They do not need a law for them to be homosexuals unless they are bent on demonstrating their sodomistic prowess in the public square.
In that case, they have to wait until their British cheer leaders succeed in torpedoing the laws against same-sex-marriage in Nigeria.
By making a case for the perpetuation of our pristine sexual ethos, we have not embarked on a voyage of racial essentialism.
Again, we are not oblivious of the warning of Frantz Fanon that a people's quest for freedom, in our case, economic freedom, must not be beholden to fossilised cultural practices. For, as he tells us,
" ... it is to the zone of occult instability where the people dwell that we must come." But while globalisation alerts the wise to the necessity of replicating at home good values from the rest of the world, we must insist on retaining those aspects of our culture that define our essence.
One of such aspects is our sexual beliefs. Yes, formerly colonised nations still trail behind Western countries that have for centuries succeeded in establishing institutions that conduce to their cohesion and the protection of their citizens' dignity.
Yet, in terms of cultural values and the tolerance that seek to preserve the humane race and forbid gleefully taunting perceived or real enemies with the ease with which one could access a nuclear button, they have so much to learn from us.
Forget about the unrelieved jeremiad of Africa being riven by corruption. For them to be saved from the catastrophe of the loss of the moral vision through which their ancestors built their countries, they must come down from their high horse and accept Africans as their teachers
So, if May wants a wife from Nigeria with the support of its government, she would definitely be disappointed.
Nor would she find succour in the United States which was a bastion of same-sex marriage advocacy in the Obama era.
Now, she is not likely to be a welcome guest of President Donald Trump.
But she could find a wife in France, Germany, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Denmark and other such countries that have embraced the prospect of extinction by endorsing same-sex marriage.