– 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 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