I like Peter Obi. He is good with numbers and it seems, from his trajectory, he has demonstrated the capacity and ability to turn things around in a developing country whose many elite and people seem to be comfortable doing things in a traditional mode. There is no doubt he is presidential material and can do great things. However, his support base seems to be so desperate, and maybe so rightly, given the facts stated above. But in trying to sell Mr. Obi, they often resort to blackmail and even direct attacks on other candidates within the coalition in ADC, especially Atiku Abubakar. This sends the wrong message to a significant section of the electoral demographics across the country.
In the first place, we are in a democracy, and it is a game of consensus or contest. It is not, even according to the philosophy of Mr. Obi, a game of anointment. Democracy presupposes plurality, negotiation, persuasion, and ultimately, acceptance of outcomes that may not align with one’s initial preferences. The idea that any candidate should be imposed, whether by emotional pressure, online intimidation, or moral grandstanding, undermines the very democratic ethos that Obidients often claim to defend.
There are several capable aspirants, and Obi is no better than them in any absolute sense. Politics, especially at the level of presidential contestation, is rarely about singular brilliance. It is about coalition-building, institutional navigation, and the ability to reconcile competing interests. Figures like Rotimi Amaechi, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, Nasir El-Rufai, Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, and Mohammed Hayatuddeen, along with others who have not even declared, have demonstrated competence and political relevance in their own right. Why, then, the fixation on Mr. Obi as though he alone embodies the future? Such insistence risks narrowing a broad democratic field into a personality cult, which is antithetical to the very reforms many Nigerians seek.
Secondly, with all this list, do the Obidients really think their threats, that if not Obi, then they will support Bola Ahmed Tinubu or withdraw entirely, are persuasive? What has taken over your rationality? Political bargaining is not sustained by ultimatums but by credible engagement. Threatening to undermine the broader opposition project if a preferred candidate does not emerge only weakens the collective capacity to challenge the status quo. It signals not strength, but fragility, an inability to negotiate within a democratic framework.
There is also the recurring argument that the next four years should, by some unwritten rule, remain the “turn” of the South to produce the president. This claim deserves to be firmly dismissed. Such zoning arrangements were internal mechanisms within the PDP, designed for political convenience rather than constitutional necessity. They do not carry the force of law, nor are they binding on the ADC. Nigeria’s constitution makes no provision for rotational presidency along regional lines. It guarantees the right of every qualified citizen to contest and be elected. To elevate party arrangements into national dogma is to confuse political strategy with constitutional order. What should matter, ultimately, is competence, vision, and the ability to unify the country, not geographic entitlement.
To be fair to Mr. Obi, when this campaign of blackmail and threats started, he openly dissociated himself from them early this year. That was a commendable stance, reflective of a leader who understands the dangers of toxic political culture. However, in his interview on ARISE last week, he appeared to echo a similar posture by suggesting that he would ‘dump any party many times over’ to find the right platform to contest. While political mobility is not inherently wrong, such statements can inadvertently validate the very impatience and absolutism displayed by some of his supporters. Leadership, especially in fragile democracies, requires not just personal conviction but also the discipline to shape the tone of one’s movement.
Thirdly, these threats and blackmail have revived uncomfortable memories among many northern Nigerians, memories of exclusion and administrative overreach. The recollection of policies during Obi’s tenure as governor of Anambra State, particularly the issue of separate identity documentation, continues to linger in the political consciousness of some communities. Whether these perceptions are fully accurate or not is less important than the fact that they exist and influence political behavior. In a country as sensitive and diverse as Nigeria, perception often becomes political reality.
What is needed at this critical juncture is not division, but unity. The task before Nigerians is far greater than the ambition of any single candidate. It is about rescuing a nation grappling with economic hardship, institutional decay, and deepening social fractures. The opposition must recognize that its strength lies in its ability to accommodate differences, forge alliances, and present a coherent alternative to governance.
The current Tinubu administration is fostering policies and political strategies that risk deepening divisions or entrenching ethnic supremacy. Whether one agrees fully with this characterization or not, there is a growing sentiment that Nigeria cannot afford further polarization. The danger is not just political defeat, but the gradual normalization of a system perceived to privilege a narrow set of interests over the collective good.
This is why the call must go out clearly to Obidients to tone down. Passion is not the problem. It is necessary for political change. But passion without discipline becomes recklessness. Advocacy without reflection becomes noise. And loyalty without critical thinking becomes a liability.
Obidients, and indeed all politically engaged Nigerians, must recalibrate. Support your candidate, but do not delegitimize others. Argue your case, but do not threaten the process. Believe in your vision, but remain open to consensus. Democracy is not a battlefield where one faction must annihilate the other. It is a marketplace of ideas where the best outcomes emerge through engagement and compromise.
We have a country on the brinks. The path to rescue will not be determined by the loudest voices or the most aggressive campaigns, but by the ability of its people to come together, think critically, and act collectively. Toning down is not a sign of weakness. It is a strategy for clarity, unity, and finally, victory.
