Special to USAfrica magazine (Houston) and USAfricaonline.com, the first Africa-owned, US-based newspaper published on the Internet.
Amarike Akpoke is a Contributing Analyst to USAfricaonline.com
In a striking twist of political irony, Nigeria’s ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) seems perpetually haunted by Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s presidential candidate in the 2023 election. Despite his acceptance of the controversial verdicts of both the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal and the Supreme Court, Obi’s name remains a recurring fixation in APC rhetoric. The latest episode involves APC National Chairman Dr. Abdullahi Ganduje defending the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Felix Morka, who claims to have received 300 death threats following a dispute sparked by Obi’s New Year’s message critical of the poor performance of the APC-led government.
Ganduje’s assertion that Obi “libelled” Morka and incited his supporters underscores the APC’s seeming inability to disengage from a politician who no longer holds executive power but has instead adopted the role of an opposition figure offering critical, yet constructive, commentary. This piece explores the paradox of Peter Obi’s enduring position as the APC’s apparent ‘nightmare’ and the imperative of weaning itself of this fixation as the ruling Party in today’s Nigeria.
The crux of this latest controversy is a disagreement over Morka’s remarks during a television interview. Obi interpreted Morka’s statement – suggesting he “deserved whatever came his way” – as a veiled threat. The APC, however, insists that the comment was harmless and that Obi’s response, including allegations of threats to his life and family, was exaggerated and misleading.
The subsequent public backlash against Morka, including reported death threats, reveals the intensity of political divisions in Nigeria. But it also raises an important question: Was Obi’s reaction a genuine expression of concern, or did it reflect a strategic overreach that the APC has capitalized on to portray itself as a victim of incitement? Peter Obi’s New Year message was a clarion call for introspection and change, consistent with his campaign themes of accountability, governance reform, and a “New Nigeria.” In the message, Obi highlighted the nation’s socio-economic challenges and the urgent need for collective action to rescue Nigeria from further decline. Obi’s claim that Nigeria is “increasingly transforming into an authoritarian and repressive regime” where freedom of expression is suppressed is a warning that must not be ignored. In a democracy, dissent and critical voices are not just tolerated; they are essential for accountability and progress. Curiously, rather than engaging with the substance of Obi’s message, Morka dismissed it as “crossing the line,” a phrase that now reverberates ominously in the political space. Obi’s response – questioning what line he may have crossed and decrying threats against his life and family – underscores the dangerous trajectory of political discourse in Nigeria.
Peter Obi’s political strategy since the 2023 elections has been defined by a combination of restraint and pointed critique. Unlike many opposition figures who resort to bombastic rhetoric, Obi has largely stuck to data-driven analyses and policy-oriented criticisms. His New Year’s message aligns with this approach. Peter Obi has consistently distinguished himself as an advocate of civility and decorum. He has, on multiple occasions, appealed to his supporters to uphold the tenets of democratic sportsmanship. As early as May 2022, while still a presidential hopeful of the Labour Party, Obi made a public plea for his supporters to avoid personal attacks and name-calling. He emphasized that elections are democratic contests, not adversarial confrontations, and urged his followers to embrace the spirit of sportsmanship. Obi’s admonitions did not stop after the 2023 general elections or even in the wake of the contentious ruling of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) in September 2023. He urged his supporters to maintain hope and resilience, framing their collective struggle for a “New Nigeria” as a marathon, not a sprint. He reiterated his commitment to the ideals of principled yet lawful engagement, emphasizing that Nigeria must belong to all Nigerians, not a privileged few. These statements underline a leadership philosophy that values inclusivity, accountability, and civility, principles that should ideally guide every political leader in a democratic society.
Yet, the APC’s response to his interventions often appears disproportionate. Rather than countering his arguments with substantive rebuttals, the ruling party frequently resorts to personal attacks or framing him as a destabilizing force. This pattern suggests a deeper insecurity within the APC: Obi’s consistent popularity and credibility among Nigerians, particularly the youth, pose a lingering challenge to the ruling party’s legitimacy. Felix Morka’s accusations against Peter Obi, that he has fostered an environment where his opponents are threatened, stand in stark contrast to Obi’s publicly articulated positions. Morka’s claim that Obi “has it coming to him whatever he gets” is not only ambiguous but also potentially inflammatory in a political climate where words often lead to actions. The assertion that Obi’s supporters constitute an “online mob” has some basis in the reality of political discourse on social media, where aggressive and often toxic exchanges are common. However, this phenomenon is not unique to the Obidient movement. Supporters of virtually all political figures in Nigeria have been guilty of vitriol and harassment online. The key distinction lies in leadership. Obi has consistently and publicly called for restraint, admonishing his supporters to avoid personal attacks and to focus on the issues. Morka, on the other hand, has not shown similar leadership in de-escalating tensions. Instead, his remarks have exacerbated an already polarized political environment.
Political leaders have a responsibility to set the tone for their supporters. Obi’s repeated calls for civility and his appeals for resilience and lawful engagement demonstrate a conscious effort to lead by example. His rhetoric has consistently focused on the issues such as poverty, corruption, and governance failures rather than on personal attacks against his opponents. In contrast, Morka’s rhetoric has been dismissive and, at times, combative. His failure to substantiate allegations against Obi further undermines the credibility of his claims. Instead of addressing Obi’s criticisms of the APC administration – issues such as institutional corruption and economic mismanagement – Morka has chosen to deflect attention with personal attacks. This approach not only distracts from the substantive issues at hand but also contributes to the erosion of political discourse. By framing opposition voices as threats rather than as legitimate contributors to the democratic process, Morka risks alienating citizens who look to political leaders for solutions, not scapegoating.
The APC’s narrative of victimhood in this saga is ironic. The APC’s leadership, which has often employed harsh rhetoric against opposition figures, now claims to be under siege due to Obi’s alleged provocation. This turn of events underscores a broader trend in Nigerian politics, where those in positions of power frequently adopt the mantle of victimhood to evade accountability. While threats against Morka and his family are unequivocally condemnable and warrant investigation, they do not absolve the APC of the responsibility to engage constructively with opposition voices. The APC’s fixation on Obi reveals more than just political rivalry; it exposes the party’s struggle to navigate the complexities of governance in a polarized nation. Obi’s ability to articulate alternative visions for Nigeria, combined with his perceived incorruptibility and appeal to younger demographics, represents a potent counter-narrative to the APC’s leadership. Obi’s criticism of government policies often resonates deeply with citizens who feel disillusioned by the state of the nation. This resonance appears to unsettle the APC, which seems to view him less as a political opponent and more as a symbolic threat to its dominance.
The Obi-Morka-Ganduje saga reflects a broader need for maturity in Nigerian political discourse. Democracy thrives on the exchange of ideas, not on personal attacks or the weaponization of victimhood. Both the ruling party and the opposition must commit to fostering an environment where policy debates take precedence over mudslinging and recriminations. For the APC, this means addressing Obi’s criticisms with facts and solutions rather than defensiveness and hostility.
For Obi and his supporters, it entails ensuring that their responses remain within the bounds of civility, even when provoked in the same way that it impels the ruling APC to wean itself of an ‘Obi-nightmare’ fixation!
As the country grapples with pressing issues, including rising poverty, inflation, insecurity, and deep-seated corruption, there is a need for political leaders to focus on solutions rather than trading accusations.
Obi’s calls for civility should serve as a model for other political actors. Elections are, indeed, democratic contests, and opposition figures play a crucial role in holding governments accountable.
Attempts to silence or delegitimize critics, whether through veiled threats or character assassinations, undermine the democratic process. Furthermore, Obi’s message of resilience and hope, particularly after the PEPC ruling, underscores the importance of constructive engagement. His framing of the journey toward a “New Nigeria” as a long and challenging marathon reflects a mature understanding of the complexities of systemic change. For Nigeria’s democracy to flourish, all political actors must embrace the principle of robust but respectful engagement. Only then can the nation rise above the toxic polarization that threatens to undermine its democratic foundations.
Overall, Peter Obi’s status as the APC’s recurring ‘nightmare’ is a reflection of his enduring relevance in Nigeria’s political landscape. However, this fixation distracts from the more pressing issues facing the nation, from economic challenges to security concerns. It is time the APC focused on governance and policy implementation rather than expending energy on thinly-veiled threats, or leveraging ad hominem argumentation tactic to silence or discredit opposition figures.
It must strive to wean itself of the illusion of opposition-centred governance. For a ruling party, the obsession with an opposition leader is counterproductive. Governance is not about proving who is right in every rhetorical exchange but about delivering solutions to the myriad challenges facing citizens. Nigerians are more interested in tangible outcomes – lower food prices, steady electricity, secure communities, and robust economic growth – than in who wins a war of words.
The APC must recognize that the energy expended on countering Obi’s every statement would be better directed toward governance. Obi, after all, is doing what an opposition politician is meant to do: offering critiques and alternative perspectives.
The ruling party’s hypersensitivity to these critiques only amplifies them, giving Obi’s message greater visibility. The apparent intolerance for criticism and its fixation on Obi’s every word suggest a fragility that does not befit a party in power. Mature democracies embrace opposition voices as vital contributors to governance, not as threats to be neutralized. When the chips are down, history will not judge the APC by how well it countered Obi’s critiques or delivered ad hominem missiles with Laser-guided precision! Instead, it will measure the party’s success by its ability to uplift the lives of ordinary Nigerians, restore trust in governance, and steer the nation toward sustainable development. The APC must let go of its “Obi-nightmare” fixation and focus on delivering the dividends of democracy.
The challenges of modern governance are daunting, but they are also an opportunity for the ruling party to demonstrate its capacity to lead. In the end, what matters is not the battles fought on the podium or in the media, but how successfully it had liberated itself from the shackles of an ‘Obi-nightmare’ and articulated and implemented policies in the service of the people.
