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

By Mohammed Babagana Abubakar
State Coordinator, The Unifier Project, Kano State
June 2, 2026

In the theater of modern statecraft, the supreme duty of a nation’s leader is the preservation of sovereignty, the protection of citizens, and the unwavering defense of constitutional order. For a complex, multi ethnic federation like Nigeria, this responsibility depends entirely on institutional consistency and the rule of law. Governance cannot be driven by personal sentiment, localized familiarity, or individual proximity to security challenges. Rather, it must be anchored in established legal frameworks that apply equally to all citizens and groups, regardless of geography or political considerations.

When political actors allow personal relationships or subjective experiences to override formal state institutions, the foundational trust holding the federation together begins to weaken. Such a development not only undermines public confidence in government but also creates uncertainty regarding the state’s commitment to justice and national security.

A stark representation of this governance dilemma is captured in the historical discourse surrounding national security, exemplified by the Premium Times archival report featured in 1000408115.jpg. In the report, former Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi was quoted as saying: “IPOB members not terrorists, I live with them… They are people I pass on the road every time, and every day.”

While such a statement may have been intended to communicate familiarity with the people of the region or to advocate a less confrontational approach, it nevertheless raises fundamental questions about leadership and security policy. More importantly, it invites Nigerians to reflect on a critical issue, should personal experience determine how a potential Commander in Chief interprets organizations that have already been subjected to legal and judicial scrutiny?

The office of the Commander in Chief is an institution, not a personal platform.
Consequently, threats to national security must be evaluated through the objective lens of constitutional provisions, judicial pronouncements, and intelligence assessments not through personal observations or individual relationships.

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) was formally proscribed as a terrorist organization by a Federal High Court under the Terrorism (Prevention) Act. Whether one agrees or disagrees with that designation, it remains a legal reality within Nigeria’s constitutional framework. Such decisions emerge from legal processes and security evaluations designed to protect national stability and preserve public order.

When influential political figures appear to diminish the significance of these institutional determinations by emphasizing personal familiarity with members of a proscribed organization, a dangerous precedent is created. It suggests that legal classifications can be subjected to individual interpretation based on personal encounters. Such a philosophy risks weakening the authority of state institutions and encouraging selective compliance with the law.

If a national leader can reinterpret a proscription based on personal proximity, what prevents future leaders from applying similar reasoning to bandits, insurgent groups, or violent militias operating within their own regions? Statecraft demands consistency. Once an organization has been formally designated a threat through legal channels, government officials must engage that reality through lawful and institutional mechanisms rather than subjective perceptions.

To build an indivisible Nigeria a central mission championed by The Unifier Project leaders must inspire confidence across all regions, ethnicities, and religious communities. Citizens from Kano to Calabar, Sokoto to Lagos, and Maiduguri to Port Harcourt expect equal protection under the law and a uniform standard of security governance.

When a prominent political figure uses language that appears to humanize or excuse a proscribed organization on the basis of regional familiarity, it can generate a national trust deficit. Citizens affected by insecurity in other parts of the country may begin to question whether the law is being applied equally. Victims of terrorism, banditry, insurgency, and violent extremism deserve assurance that national security policies are guided by principles rather than regional sentiments.

True national unity cannot thrive where selective empathy replaces consistent application of the law. A security threat in one part of Nigeria must be regarded as a concern for the entire federation. Ambiguity from national leaders only risks deepening divisions and undermining collective confidence in the state.

The ultimate measure of an effective Commander in Chief is the ability to separate personal familiarity from executive responsibility. Ordinary citizens may encounter people or situations daily without fully appreciating their broader implications for national security. A national leader, however, cannot afford such limitations.

The Nigerian electorate deserves leaders who provide clarity, consistency, and unwavering commitment to institutional governance. Trust is strengthened when citizens are confident that those entrusted with power will uphold judicial decisions, respect established legal frameworks, and enforce the rule of law without fear, favoritism, or regional bias.

In the face of challenges to Nigeria’s sovereignty and unity, institutional prescription must always take precedence over personal perception. That is the essence of responsible leadership and the foundation upon which lasting national stability is built.

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