By Valentine Obienyem

In the morning of 26th of March, 2026, a man I hold in the highest regard sent me a WhatsApp message: “Azu shredding our man.” I immediately knew it was about Mr. Peter Obi. Titled “Obi’s Transition From Serious Contender to Mascot,” I had to read it. Four major strands are woven into the write-up, namely: that the nickname “Okwute” suggests strength and stability, yet the author argues that Obi’s political movements – party switches, alliances, and strategies – contradict that image, portraying him as flexible to a fault rather than firm. The author further contends that after the 2023 elections, instead of strengthening the Labour Party, building grassroots structures, and expanding influence, Obi focused on legal battles and future ambitions, thereby losing valuable momentum. The piece also uses Obi as a case study to criticise the broader opposition, suggesting a lack of organisation, strategy, and long-term planning compared to the ruling party. The bottom line is that the article is not merely about Obi as an individual; it advances a broader claim that charisma and public enthusiasm are insufficient in politics without structure, consistency, and strategic depth.

After reading it, I called my friend back and delivered my verdict: “What a beautiful analysis!” He readily agreed. He also concurred with my concluding thought: the article brings to mind the elegant Latin saying, “Bene cucurrit, sed spatium defecit” – he ran a good race, but ran out of track. Yet, therein lies the fundamental flaw of the piece: it employs the wrong man as the specimen for what is otherwise a sound political analysis. What this means, in effect, is that while the framework of the argument may be compelling, its application is misplaced; the conclusions drawn lose their force because they are anchored to a subject who does not fit the diagnosis.

The writer took off with the analysis of Obi’s name. I do not think it has any ontological relevance to understanding Obi in the context of Nigeria, but he went on to say that, unlike “Okwute”, Obi is “malleable, confused, and lacking in staying power.” Is this Obi? Not at all. If we must understand Obi, we must always remember that he bore in his veins the mark of discipline, resilience, and consistency shaped by political experience. We may go back to Obi’s political roots while striving to analyse his character properly. When Obi’s mandate was stolen in Anambra State, he did not run away nor compromise his position or his mandate. In spite of all manner of offers for him to abandon his tenure recovery cases, he moved on. He ended up becoming the first person to reclaim his stolen mandate through the courts at a time when all those who tried it in the past had to abandon the fight in flight.

When he was impeached, it was the same. When he was removed when his tenure had not expired, he stayed on course and recovered his tenure. In fact, that was even the origin of staggered elections in Nigeria till today. Thus, whenever the political history of Nigeria is written, Obi must be credited with the introduction of far-reaching reforms in that political space more than any other person. Does this portray a man, in Azu’s words, as “malleable, confused, and lacking in staying power”? Azu must be analysing another person.

Azu said Obi’s troops should be worried, including “social media avatars without voters’ cards.” I do not expect such language from him, because it is the language of those who rig elections or hide under “glitches” to wreak havoc on our electoral system. Dubious politicians – or those they tutor in the techniques of portraying the opposition as lacking real political power – often deploy such narratives so that when they have rigged, they can fall back on lines like: “Did we not tell you that social media avatars had no voters’ cards?” Azu is a media man, and no media man worth his salt is absent from social media platforms. Does that mean he does not have a voter’s card? Those he sees on social media are as important in their professions as he is in his own. The world is changing. Among the generation we call digital natives, we expect active participation on social media. It would therefore be wrong to assume that those on social media do not possess voter’s cards.

“After the tale of him winning the 2023 presidential poll, an election in which he punched above his political weight and won in 12 states,” thus spoke Azu. He even spoke about the dearth of Labour Party agents. This already shows him as sharing the same line of thought with the ruling party. What is a “tale” about Obi winning the 2023 election? This is one of the tragedies of rigging. Once a court gives its final judgment, as in the case of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, people begin to speak as though he truly won, even when the opposite is too glaring to ignore. The fact of Obi’s victory, however, remains unchanged and has continued to deny Bat the support of legitimacy. 

If Azu was sincere, he would have questioned, like all those genuinely concerned about the good of the country, the alleged glitch that affected real-time transmission of results. A sincere analysis would raise the more pressing question: how do we circumvent the challenge of parties not having agents in all polling units? At this point, one would expect Azu to engage with models adopted in countries such as Brazil, India, and Namibia, where electronic voting systems significantly reduce the need for physical agents.

Is Azu not concerned, or should he not be concerned, that Nigeria is moving backwards, while he appears to be endorsing that regression? A sound analysis should be forward-looking, proposing ways to strengthen transparency and gradually eliminate systemic vulnerabilities, rather than reinforcing a system that allows gaps through which manipulation can occur. Is Azu not aware that forgery is no longer treated as a crime for electoral purposes? These are the issues that should be of concern to him.

One of the most perplexing of Azu’s accusations is that after the 2023 elections, Obi went “on throwing tantrums, wasting energy and resources in litigation, and missed the opportunity to consolidate and build the structure of the Labour Party.” Has Obi ever thrown tantrums at anybody? If there is one politician noted for objectivity and constructive criticism in Nigeria, it is Peter Obi. I do not know, except Azu tells us, whether those criticisms we daily read in his tweets are what he defines as tantrums.

If you have been following Obi, you would have noticed that many of the issues he raises in his tweets are often later acknowledged – or even acted upon – by the ruling government. Is Azu aggrieved that Obi went to court? He should have suggested other available options instead of litigation. When the judiciary was relatively stronger, was it not through litigation that some of the most significant milestones in Nigeria’s politico-legal history were achieved? And why cite Justice Salami, who was not even aware that Obi did not participate in the PDP primaries? This, to me, reveals a writer on a predetermined mission.

Our democracy is only as strong as the people who lead it. If, for example, a pig is placed in charge of an arena known for its cleanliness, it will inevitably soil it over time. When President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua was in office, he acknowledged that the election that brought him to power was not perfect and expressed readiness to reform the electoral system. During the period when Obi was contesting for his second term, Yar’Adua’s position was clear: elections must be free and fair, and whoever wins should take office. Today, however, that standard is no longer the case—and Azu knows it. Is he not aware of the deliberate efforts to weaken opposition parties under the weight of state power? The decline of the PDP, despite its numerous governors, is a classic example of federal might in action.

If we have a leader without restraint, he will pursue his agenda—unless checked. When a president is intent on undermining the Labour Party, what exactly does Azu expect Obi to have done differently? One clear example is INEC telling the big wigs in Labour that they would not recognise the faction that worked with Obi. Sometimes, when the goal is to diminish a man, the system itself is deployed as the instrument of that diminishment. Is Azu not aware, for example, that INEC refused to comply with court judgments concerning the Labour Party until after Obi had already left the party? I would like him to investigate and explain the forces behind such actions. In such a context, what would he have expected Obi to do? How could he have nurtured a structure that had already been deliberately weakened? It is not through abstract declarations about “nurturing and growth” that one revives what has been systematically stifled. We are witnessing, with growing concern, a readiness to undermine Nigeria’s democratic fabric in pursuit of political advantage.  How on earth can a president only practicable policy is the caging of Obi without scruples, but BAT believes with Machiavelli that scruples are not becoming in rulers responsible for governing states thereby endlessly scheming to remain in power.

It seems hardly credible, and yet it is true, that the news presently circulating. with supporting evidence, indicates that individuals whom Obi visited, or those who made complimentary remarks about him, are being arrested and detained. We would like Azu to also analyse this state of affairs for us. If not for the fact that Obi is truly “Okwute”, one wonders whether any man – indeed, even Achilles – could withstand the ordeals he has been subjected to.

It is to the credit of the “APC that it prepares as though elections were tomorrow – collecting defectors, aggressively registering new members, and even testing its election situation room.” Yet this is another statement made in bad faith. The tragedy of Nigeria is the dearth of men of conviction. Every day, we are confronted with the reality that Nigeria’s problem lies largely in its people. While would people not defect or allow themselves to be registered under APC, when it is a sure route towards the forgiveness of their transgressions against the State?

Reading Azu, I am compelled to ask for his opinion on the refusal of legislators to support the compulsory transmission of election results through BVAS. It has been demonstrated that even in places with no network, once results are transmitted, they are automatically uploaded when connectivity is restored. Rather than recognising what is wrong—including potential loopholes for electoral manipulation—some choose to call it “being prepared.” If they are indeed prepared, why does their focus remain on how to prevent one man from becoming a candidate of any political party? To ascribe Obi’s votes in Lagos and the FCT to “an emotional response from the young and aggrieved and a bloc of Christian voters thirsty for change” as Azu did is, quite frankly, beneath the level of a careful and fair analysis.

After all he has written, why should the alliance between Obi and Kwankwaso be of concern to him? Consider his own words: “With Obi now in ADC and Kwankwaso still nursing the remnants of his NNPP, it is a good time to ask who is gravitating toward whom. The ambitions of both men are well known, and the ADC’s presidential ticket is nearly foreclosed.” Is he the spokesperson for the Obidients and Kwankwasiyya? If he is not, then he should be reminded that he is in no position to sit in judgment over their preferences, or to dictate what they should do or intend to do.

It is really a pity to have read a piece like this as coming from Azu. If I closed my eyes and someone read it to me, I would have bet that it came from Reno, Bwala, Fani, Bayo, Joe or even Sam. The tone, the framing, and the underlying assumptions all read more like a familiar polemic than the considered analysis one would expect from a writer of his stature.

Amidst all this, Obi stands apart. He possesses a subtle intelligence, capable of moving resolutely through difficult terrain toward distant ends. If it is a credit to a man that he practises what he preaches, then Obi unquestionably deserves our attention. His quiet, staid character, his modest simplicity, and his indiscourageable honesty have earned him enduring respect. He is a man who speaks with restraint but acts with conviction, and his statements and engagements continue to be heard across the country, the world. When all deductions are made, he still stands as the leading voice of the opposition – consistent, disciplined, and principled.

 The Obidient movement he inspires, which Azu tried to disparage speaks volumes about his character. He has become a symbol for those who are weary of the status quo and who yearn for genuine reform. By his conduct, he has shown that influence is dependent on clarity of purpose and steadiness of character. Indeed, he has made “Obidient” more than a slogan – it has become a credo, a mass movement rooted in shared aspiration and trust.

For a man of such qualities to be reduced in the manner Azu attempts is, at the very least, surprising. If anything, one would expect a more balanced appreciation of a figure whose character and political trajectory continue to command attention and admiration. Instead, what we encounter is an analysis that feels disconnected from the very realities it seeks to interpret. We can therefore, with surety, say that  Azu’s “Obi’s Transition from Serious Contender to Mascot” is a mischievous essay clothed in hyperbole and paradox.