– Sufyan Lawal Kabo (Sefjamil)
sefjamil3@gmail.com

The writing is clearly on the wall: Peter Obi’s repeated defence and open sympathy for the terrorist group IPOB expose a dangerous agenda against the unity and stability of Nigeria. His posture raises serious suspicions about a calculated attempt to advance the Southeast’s secessionist ambitions and ultimately push an agenda of Igbo political dominance over the country. No true nationalist would continue to associate with or defend a group whose activities have threatened national peace, security, and coexistence.

As Nigeria gradually moves toward another electoral season, many citizens are beginning to critically re-examine the political movement built around Peter Obi and the Obidient ideology. While his supporters present him as a symbol of change, many Nigerians, especially in the North and parts of the Southwest, remain deeply worried about the kind of political tension and division that often surrounds his movement.

One of the major concerns repeatedly raised against Peter Obi is his controversial position regarding IPOB. The Indigenous People of Biafra was declared a terrorist organisation by the Nigerian military on September 15, 2017. Various federal authorities defended that action based on security concerns and separatist activities.

However, over the years, Obi turned out being too soft toward IPOB and failing to clearly distance himself from separatist sentiments. This has continued to generate suspicion among many Nigerians who believe national unity must remain non-negotiable.

Another issue that generated strong reactions during the 2023 election was Peter Obi’s repeated “take back your country” campaign slogan in churches. Across several campaign appearances especially in churches where he seem to prefer campaigning, Obi consistently told worshippers that it was time to “take back the country.” a phrase dangerously promoted resentment and emotional anger against existing institutions. Many also observed that the slogan gained massive traction particularly within emotionally charged religious gatherings and church based mobilisations during the campaign period.

For a country already struggling with ethnic and religious fault lines, many Nigerians feared that such rhetoric could deepen division instead of promoting unity.

Equally controversial was Obi’s 2023 campaign visit to Kano State. Political observers noted that his major outing in Kano was concentrated around Sabon Gari, an area historically dominated by Igbo traders and residents. A presidential candidate seeking national unity should visibly engage broader indigenous communities across Kano rather than appearing politically comfortable only within ethnic strongholds. Many northern citizens interpreted the optics as politically insensitive and reflective of identity based mobilisation.

Another worrying trend in recent times is the increasing disrespect directed at northern historical leaders such as Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto, and Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa by the Igbo supporters of Obi especially those in southeast and the Kwankwasiyya members in Kano. These men remain foundational figures in Nigeria’s political history and symbols of Northern leadership and sacrifice. Sadly, social media spaces have increasingly become filled with insulting comments, revisionist attacks and mockery against these late leaders.

While political disagreement is normal in democracy, there is a dangerous culture developing where historical figures are demonised simply because of modern political bitterness. Such attacks are unhealthy for national unity and dangerous for younger generations who may grow up without respect for the sacrifices of Nigeria’s founding fathers.

Many Nigerians are therefore beginning to ask difficult questions. Did Obi, being a dire supporter of IPOB, terrorist group, deserve to become a president of this country? Is the Obidient movement truly about national unity, or has it become a platform driven mainly by anger, online aggression and ethnic emotions? Can Nigeria survive another wave of highly emotional politics built around social media propaganda and regional grievances?

The truth is that Nigeria needs reforms, competent leadership and accountability. But Nigeria also needs stability, unity and mutual respect among all ethnic and religious groups. No political ambition should be allowed to inflame ethnic suspicion or deepen regional hostility.

As 2027 gradually approaches, Nigerians must be careful not to surrender the future of the country to emotional propaganda, social media pressure or divisive political narratives. Leadership should unite Nigeria, not polarise it further.

Sufyan writes from Abuja

#Facebooktrending #Instagramtrending #TikToktrending #XTrending #nationalhouseofassembly #kanoemiratecouncil #nigeriasenate #NTA #NTAnews #whitehouse #HouseofCommons #burkinham #CNNInternational #CNNPolitics #Bbcnews #Apkabio #bbcworld #BBCBreaking #AREWA24 #Tinubu #AbbaKabirYusuf #AbbaGidaGida #NTAUpdates #AITNEWS #DailyNigerian #vanguardnews #VanguardNewspaper #allnigerianewspapers #trendingreelsvideo #trendingnews #kano #AlJazeera #channelstv #life #facebook #instagram#HonAbbaBichi
#Bichi #KanoPolitics #realTIMEnews
#AbbaKabirYusuf #KanoState #TheNigeriaSenate #ThePresidency
#FacbookFeeds #X #TikTok #InstagramFeeds #LinkedIn

By Onyedikachi Chinatu

“The only thing I disagree with is naming IPOB terrorist; they are not terrorists.”

“I stay in Onitsha, and I can tell you that they are people I pass them on the road every day.”

No doubt emotions has eroded the minds of some Nigerians making them vulnerable to politicians who feeds on these emotions but more importantly is that our reasoning should not let this be, it is for this purpose that I have tried in providing evidences to these issues and as Peter Obi himself will always chant “go and verify” I have tried to make these verifications easier. The words above were the very words of Peter Obi, during a 2022 interview while reacting to the designation of IPOB as a terrorist organization. (https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/10/ipob-members-not-terrorists-i-live-with-them-peter-obi/amp/ )

Years later, these comments continue to raise questions, not because Nigerians are opposed to free speech or alternative opinions, but because insecurity has left deep wounds across the country and especially within parts of the South-East where many families, businesses, and communities have directly or indirectly suffered from violence, fear, and economic disruptions.

Across several South-East states, sit-at-home orders and their enforcement have disrupted commercial activities, education, transportation, and everyday life. Major commercial cities once known for nonstop economic activities have repeatedly witnessed closures, empty streets, and declining investor confidence. ( https://businessday.ng/news/article/nigerias-south-east-region-losses-n7-6trn-on-ipobs-sit-at-home-order/ )

The insecurity situation also produced tragic incidents that shaped national conversations. On April 5, 2021, gunmen attacked the correctional facility and police formations in Owerri, Imo State, leading to mass prison breaks and widespread security concerns. Nigerian authorities linked the incident to IPOB and its armed wing, though the group denied involvement. ( https://www.channelstv.com/2021/04/05/imo-prison-attack-1844-inmates-escaped-corrections-authorities/ )

Beyond isolated attacks, reports have documented hundreds of deaths, repeated disruptions, and severe economic losses connected to insecurity and the enforcement of sit-at-home actions across the region. ( https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/separatists-sit-at-home-protests-lead-700-deaths-nigerias-southeast-report-says-2025-05-26/ )

This is why public figures seeking national leadership are often judged not only by what they criticize, but also by what they defend, how they frame sensitive issues, and the clarity of the alternatives they provide.

Peter Obi has consistently criticized the current administration over insecurity and the economy. Criticism itself is not a problem. In democracy, governments should be questioned and challenged. In fact, opposition politics exists partly for that reason.

However, difficult questions also deserve difficult answers.

When insecurity in parts of the South-East escalated, did his public comments provide enough reassurance to victims and families affected by violence?

When discussing groups and movements that government institutions view differently, could such statements have been interpreted differently by people living with fear and uncertainty?

And perhaps more importantly, beyond repeatedly pointing out failures, what specific pathways has he consistently placed before Nigerians as solutions?

Supporters often describe Peter Obi as disciplined, prudent, and accountable. Critics argue that he sometimes appears quicker at identifying problems than communicating practical implementation strategies. Both viewpoints deserve consideration.

Politics should not simply be about who criticizes more effectively. It should also be about who provides clearer answers.

Because in a country battling insecurity, unemployment, economic hardship, and growing divisions, Nigerians have a right to question those in government.

They equally have a right to question those asking to replace them.

Onyedikachi  Chinatu writes from Kano onyedikachichinatu7@gmail.com

The Labour Party (LP) presidential candidate, Peter Obi, had in 2017 faulted the Nigerian government’s proscription of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).

(Peter Obi is currently the Nigeria democratic Congress presidential candidate)

He also faulted the government designation of IPOB as a terrorists’ organisation.

Obi stated this on 1 October 2017 when he appeared as a guest on Channels TV’s Politics Today.

A video clip of the interview, published on YouTube, has been trending on social media.

IPOB is a separatist group that is leading an agitation for an independent state of Biafra which it wants carved out from the South-east and some parts of the South-south Nigeria.

The group has been accused of being responsible for the deadly attacks in the South-east.

The Nigerian government proscribed the group in 2017 and tagged it a terrorist organisation.

But Mr Obi, a former governor of Anambra State, said then that IPOB was not a terrorist organisation and that the government was wrong to have proscribed the group.

The only thing I disagree with is naming IPOB terrorists. They are not terrorists. Those who took the decision may have information that I don’t have,” he said.

“I live in Onitsha, and I can tell you they are not terrorists. They (IPOB members) are people I pass on the road every time, (and) every day.”

Mr Obi insisted that IPOB members did not constitute a threat to Nigeria.

I meet them and live with them. In fact, I usually see (IPOB) people gathering, and not one day has there been a threat or molestation or anything from them, even when they gather,” the LP candidate said of the IPOB members.

Mr Obi was a member of the Peoples Democratic Party at the time of the interview.

Doyin Okupe, the spokesperson of the LP candidate, did not respond to calls seeking comments from him on the viral clip.

He did not also respond to a text message seeking to know if Mr Obi still maintains his stand against the proscription of IPOB and its designation as a terrorist organisation.

Recently, Nobel Laureate, Wole Soyinka, had also questioned the proscription of the secessionist group by the government.

The famous playwright, during “Newsnight,” a pre-recorded programme on Channels TV in August, expressed surprise that the government failed to proscribe Miyetti Allah despite attacks and hate speech allegedly carried out by the cattle breeders’ group across the country.

“…why are you proscribing IPOB without proscribing Miyetti Allah?” Mr Soyinka had said.

Premium Times of October 5 2022