By Valentine Obienyem
A few weeks ago, the man we fondly call “the Boss”, Mr Oseloka Obaze, one of the most refined gentlemen I have had the privilege of knowing, advised me to focus on the bigger picture and ignore the little mosquitoes (my word) hovering around Mr Peter Obi, buzzing irritatingly in the ears of those who care to listen.
By mosquitoes, I mean the distractions along Obi’s political path, including Governor Chukwuma Soludo and the Minister of Works, David Umahi.
His advice was simple: ignore them. Nothing they say or do can diminish Obi’s political stature. Our responsibility is to promote his ideas and vision for Nigeria.
I agreed, but after listening to Umahi’s recent ARISE News interview, which was like going rounds in an asylum, I concluded that silence might be mistaken for an inability to answer his hollow arguments. Some statements are so damning that only a damning response can assuage the rage they provoke.
Umahi’s combative disposition reminded me of a disturbing incident involving a young woman from Anambra State killed by her boyfriend from Ebonyi State, the way Umahi is struggling to politically kill Peter Obi.
I do not equate physical violence with political disagreement, but the lesson is clear: no one owns another person’s destiny. Just as no one has the right to destroy a woman for exercising her freedom of choice, Umahi should understand that Obi has the right to pursue his political ambition without relentless attempts to diminish him.
Listening to the minister, I wondered whether he had come to discuss public policy or vilify Peter Obi. Why did he run away from Rufai?
Umahi argued that Obi initiated their disagreement by criticising his work; that Obi was not the best presidential material the South-East could produce; that he should have consulted regional political leaders before pursuing his ambition; that the region never agreed to accept a single four-year presidential term; that Obi disrespected the President; and that he should condemn provocative statements attributed to his supporters, may be as he Umahi has continued to condemn the 80% communication by the Presidency because they are directed against Peter Obi.
Umahi said he was attacking Obi because Obi was attacking his boss, President Tinubu. The ARISE News anchor appeared taken aback, questioning the suggestion that Obi was disrespectful. Umahi cited Obi’s call for Tinubu to resign and claimed Obi had said the President was sick. When pressed, however, he admitted that somebody had told him so.
Did you see how a minister can undermine his own argument? He mistook a call for resignation on grounds of leadership and national interest for a personal attack, then relied on hearsay to support another allegation. He revealed the workings of his mind.
There is a difference between criticising a president’s performance and making unverified claims about his health. Nigerians are entitled to demand accountability and call for a president’s resignation. Such a call is not, by itself, an insult. A minister should not mistake criticism of his principal for a personal affront requiring retaliation.
Umahi also claimed that Obi initiated their disagreement by visiting his sites. As far as we know, Obi merely stopped at a bad stretch of the Benin–Lagos Expressway and called on the Government to repair it. Does being a citizen mean Obi must not criticise a government project because the minister might be offended? Childishness!
Consider the Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway. Obi argued that repairing existing, dilapidated roads should take priority over grandiose projects. The highway is financed with public resources; its cost, procurement and economic justification are legitimate subjects of public scrutiny.
Umahi is the Minister of Works, not the owner of the highway. His responsibility is to defend the project, not demand immunity from criticism.
Umahi declared that Obi was not, and could never be, the best presidential material the South-East could produce. As far as I know, Obi has never claimed to be the best; it is the judgement of Nigerians that places him among the best, not Umahi’s. This hostility recalls Umahi’s opposition when Atiku Abubakar chose Obi as his running mate in 2019. What a vindictive approach to politics!
Who appointed Umahi the final arbiter of the South-East’s political worth? If he believes another candidate is superior, let him present the evidence. Repeating that Obi can never be the best does not establish anyone else’s superiority; it merely reveals the intensity of his opposition.
And throughout the interview, did Umahi speak against electoral rigging? If he could bring Obi into almost every answer, why did he not address how to prevent rigging?
Umahi insisted that Obi should have consulted governors and other political stakeholders before pursuing his presidential ambition. He even suggested that the presidency, when it came to the East, should not come from Anambra because Zik had been President. After hearing this, I gave up on Umahi as a credible interpreter of the political aspirations of the Igbo people.
There is a difference between consultation and control. How many people did Umahi consult before accepting to serve as Minister of Works? Did he consult me? When he led Igbo leaders and governors to endorse PBAT, did he consult me?
Peter Obi did not require Umahi’s permission to contest the presidency. Democracy is not an exclusive arrangement among political office-holders; the people are the ultimate source of political legitimacy. Obi’s appeal extends beyond the South-East, attracting Nigerians who see in him an alternative to the established political order.
Umahi also challenged the idea of a single four-year presidential term for the South-East, asking who had authorised Obi to make such a commitment on behalf of the Igbo people. No individual can claim to speak for every person in the region. If Obi proposed a four-year term to build trust across Nigeria, its merits can be debated.
It appears that a ceiling has been placed above the Igbo people, and it requires compromises and deft political manoeuvring to bring it down. That is what Obi is attempting to do. The South-East’s political future requires strategy, negotiation and trust-building across Nigeria.
Umahi faulted Obi for failing to condemn a remark reportedly made by a supporter involving Christianity. But did Obi make or endorse the statement? A candidate cannot automatically be held responsible for every utterance of every supporter.
Umahi’s invocation of Christian principles also invites scrutiny of his own conduct. Christianity demands integrity, justice, compassion and respect for human dignity. Allegations concerning improper demands from a woman seeking a contract and disturbing stories involving the deaths of contractors and health professionals require establishing if those acts by Umahi are the christian values he talked about.
A minister who invokes Christian morality against a political opponent should welcome the same standard of scrutiny for himself.
Umahi also alluded to IPOB supporting Obi. Support from a group does not automatically mean that a candidate endorses all its positions or actions. Political disagreement should be grounded in evidence, not divisive insinuations.
At the heart of this controversy is a question Umahi seems unwilling to confront: what should leadership mean in a country facing enormous economic and social challenges? Should political leaders explain policies, defend public expenditure and offer credible alternatives, or spend their energy declaring who is worthy and who should consult whom?
Peter Obi criticised a government project; Umahi defended it. That should have been an opportunity to examine public expenditure, infrastructure and national priorities. Instead, the conversation descended into personalities, regional gatekeeping and political resentment.
A cultured Igbo man is traditionally expected to combine strength with restraint, conviction with courtesy, and courage with humour. He should possess the gaiety and grace, the humour and wit, and the refinement and manners that make disagreement an occasion for exchanging ideas rather than descending into personal antagonism.
Umahi’s performance, in my view, fell short of that ideal. His combative posture gave the impression of a man insensible of shame.
Peter Obi, by contrast, is a statesman of rare vision and restraint. One may challenge his record or disagree with his choices, but his right to pursue his ambition is not subject to Umahi’s permission. His appeal rests on the hope of leadership that places national interest above personal advantage and public service above political entitlement.
I return to Oseloka Obaze’s advice: focus on the bigger picture. Nigeria needs better leadership, stronger institutions, a productive economy and a politics less preoccupied with the sensitivities of office-holders.
Yet, when a mosquito becomes so persistent that its buzzing threatens to drown out a necessary conversation, one may occasionally have to identify it - not because it deserves our attention, but because the subject at hand deserves clarity.
History is rarely kind to those who devote more energy to diminishing others than to explaining their own contributions. Political greatness is not measured by how loudly one declares a rival unworthy, but by how convincingly one demonstrates one’s own worth.
Umahi is, in intent, a fratricide: a man seemingly determined to destroy his own brother, Peter Obi, politically, or sell him for a few kobo to PBAT. In his desperation to diminish Obi, he seems to have forgotten that the injury of one Igbo son can become the loss of the entire family. Such is the tragedy of deliberate fratricide: in trying to destroy a brother, one may end up diminishing oneself.
0 comments:
Post a Comment