Politics
It’s a strange judgement, LP Legal Adviser, Atiku, Obi head to Supreme Court
The Legal Adviser to the Labour Party, Kehinde Edun, vowed to challenge the judgment at the Supreme Court.
Also, Atiku’s Lead Counsel, Chris Uche, SAN, said he had received instructions from his client to file an appeal at the Supreme Court.
He said “The judgment has been delivered but we have not received justice. Luckily, the law has given us leverage to go on appeal to the Supreme Court. We have instructions from our clients to go to the Supreme Court. The struggle continues.”
The PEPT which began sitting at 9.40am at the Court of Appeal, Abuja, ruled that the petition filed by Atiku and Obi and their parties had no merit and unanimously upheld Tinubu’s electoral victory in the February 25 presidential election.
The five-member panel took turns to dismiss the petitions presented by Atiku and Obi against the declaration of Tinubu as the winner of the presidential election by the Independent National Electoral Commission on March 1, 2023.
The judgment was delivered by the Chairman of the tribunal, Justice Haruna Tsammani, assisted by other members of the panel-Justices Stephen Adah, Monsurat Bolaji-Yusuf, Moses Ugo and Abba Mohammed.
Delivering the death knell to Atiku’s petition on Wednesday night, Tsammani stated, “This petition accordingly lacks merit. I affirm the return of Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the duly elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The parties are to bear their cost.”
The National Legal Adviser of the LP, Edun, expressed disappointment with the judgment, stressing that the tribunal was unfair to reject 10 of their 13 witnesses, adding that the decision weakened their case.
Edun said, “We already had a premonition that this might happen. For example, where the court was saying the statements of some key witnesses should have been filed along with the petitions. How can that be? Subpoena is an order of court by which the court has compelled a witness to come and give evidence before or as of the time you are filing the petition.
‘’This is because I have not assumed jurisdiction, the tribunal has also not assumed jurisdiction. We are just filing. It is only after filing that the court assumes jurisdiction, not before. So how can you file a witness statement at the time of filing the petition? It is when the court signs the subpoena.”
He explained, ‘’That subpoena is an invitation to the person indicating that the court has given him an order to come and give evidence. So, if the court has not ordered the person, how can he give any statement?
‘’This is why I said the judgment is so strange. And it is on the basis that they knocked out the evidence of 10 of our 13 witnesses, which inevitably weakened our case. It is a strange judgment.”
On the next point of action for the party, the legal adviser disclosed that the apex court will be the final arbiter.
“There are some filings that are unacceptable to us. So we need to see what the apex court has to say to this. We have to address this, not only for today, but for the sake of our jurisprudence. We want to see what the judges at the Supreme Court will say about all these. It is so important to do this for the sake of tomorrow.”
Delivering judgment earlier on Obi and LP’s petition marked CA/PEPC/03/2023, Tsammani said the petitioners failed to prove the allegations in their petition as required by the law and went ahead to knock off the planks of the case one after the other.
The tribunal held that although the petitioners alleged that the election was marred by irregularities, they, however, failed to give specific details of where the alleged infractions took place.
The court noted that whereas Obi and the LP insisted that the election was rigged in 18, 088 polling units across the federation, they were unable to state the locations of the said polling units.
In the verdict that was read for five hours, the tribunal further held that Obi’s allegation that fictitious results were recorded for the Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress by the Independent National Electoral Commission was not proved.
Moreso, it pointed out that the petitioners were unable to state the figures they claimed were reduced from the election results they garnered in different states of the federation, especially in Ondo, Oyo, Rivers, Yobe, Borno, Tabara, Osun and Lagos States.
It added that the petitioners equally failed to state the polling units where over-voting occurred or the exact figures of unlawful votes that were credited to Tinubu by the INEC.
It stressed that though Obi and LP said they would rely on spreadsheets as well as forensic reports and expert analysis of their expert witnesses, they failed to attach the documents to the petition or serve the same on the respondents as required by the law.
The court stated that though the petition contained serious allegations that bordered on violence, non-voting, suppression of votes, fictitious entry of election results and corrupt practices, Obi and his party, however, failed to give particulars of specific polling units where the incidents took place.
It held that several portions of the petition that contained the allegations were “vague, imprecise, nebulous and bereft of particular materials.”
Therefore, the court struck out paragraphs 9, 60, 61, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 83 and 89 of the petition.
“They failed to state the number of votes affected and the number of people disenfranchised. The determination of the election is about figures,” Justice Mohammed declared.
He further stated, “It is unimaginable that a petitioner will allege widespread rigging in 176,000 polling units, over 8,000 wards, 774 LGAs, 36 states and FCT without stating the specific place where the alleged irregularities occur.
“The law is very clear that where someone alleged irregularities in a particular polling unit, such person must prove the particular irregularities in that polling unit for him to succeed in his petition.
“Labour Party made generic allegations of irregularities and said they would rely on spreadsheets, inspection reports, and forensic analysis but the documents promised by the petitioners were not attached to the petition.”
Obi nomination validated
Nevertheless, the court dismissed the contention of the respondents-Tinubu and the APC-that Obi was not validly nominated by the LP to contest the presidential election.
It noted that the respondents had argued that Obi left the PDP on May 24, 2022 and joined the LP on May 27, 2022.
The respondents in its petition claimed that as of May 30, 2022, Obi was not a valid member of the LP and could not have duly participated in its presidential primary election.
They insisted that his name could not have been contained in the membership register of the LP, which ought to be submitted to INEC 30 days before the primary election was held.
However, the court held that the issue of membership is an internal affair of a political party, which is not justiciable.
It maintained that only the LP has the prerogative of determining its members, adding that the respondents were bereft of the legal authority to query Obi’s membership of the LP.
Likewise, the court held that contrary to contention by Tinubu and the APC, the petitioners were not under any obligation to join Atiku who came second in the election or his party, the PDP, in the case.
It noted that both Atiku and the PDP are not statutory respondents or necessary parties to the petition.
On the alleged $460,000 forfeiture made by Tinubu to the United States Government, Justice Tsammani said, “The petitioners have evidently failed to establish their allegation that the 2nd respondent is disqualified from contesting the presidential election under section 137 (1)(d) of the 1999 constitution because he was fined $460,000 by a district court in Illinois.
“The order of forfeiture in exhibit P5 on which the petitioners have relied does not qualify as a sentence of fine for an offence involving dishonesty or fraud within the formulation of section 137 (d) of the 1999 constitution.”
25% FCT votes
On the interpretation of the 25 per cent votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory, Tsammani ruled that the interpretation of the constitution on the issue by the LP is “fallacious.”
According to him, sections 134 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) stipulate that a presidential candidate must attain or score a majority of votes cast in a presidential election, where two or more candidates are involved, and at least 25 per cent in two-thirds of the 36 states and the FCT to meet the constitutional requirement to be declared as duly elected as President of Nigeria.
“With due respect to counsel to the petitioners, their interpretation of the provision of the constitution as regards the 25 per cent in Abuja is fallacious if not completely ludicrous,” the jurist affirmed, stressing that there is equality of rights irrespective of which part of the country voters prefer to live.
Puncturing Obi’s claims, Tsammani added, “The futility and hollowness in the arguments of the petitioners that the votes of the voters in the FCT have more weight than others in other parts of the country to the extent that their votes purportedly have a greater effect on other votes is null and void.”
Meanwhile, the tribunal has said it is not mandatory for the INEC to transmit election results electronically, adding that INEC is at liberty to define the mode it intends to use.
It emphasised that the sole technological requirement mandated for use by the commission during elections is the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System.
“By the provision of section 52 and section 65 of the Electoral Act, INEC is at liberty to prescribe the manner in which results can be transmitted. INEC cannot be compelled to electronically transmit results,” the court held.
The tribunal rejected the European Union Election Observers Mission report on the February 25 presidential election on by Peter Obi and the Labour Party.
The court said it rejected the report on the grounds that it was not tendered by an official of the body which is the author and has custody of the document.
The tribunal similarly dismissed allegations of non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2022 filed against Tinubu’s election by Atiku and the PDP.
Justice Adah said the petitioners failed to substantiate their claim that the election did not comply with the provisions of sections 134 and 135 of the Electoral Act.
He said, “There has to be sufficient grounds before the petitioners can establish that there was no substantial compliance with the Electoral Act in the conduct of the election. The petitioners have in their petition listed some of the facts relating to their complaints of non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2022.
‘’The key facts are in paragraphs 18, 22, 23,, 25, 28, 29, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40-44, 46 and 48 of the petition. The respondents have issues with the petitioners in respect of this issue and they all denied the facts pleaded by the petitioners.
“In paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37, the first respondent, the Independent National Electoral Commission replied to the petition and denied all the allegations in the petition. The verdict of proof remains on the petitioners to establish their claim as required by the law.
‘’Apart from the first respondent who is the primary respondent due to the fact that it is its acts that are challenged in this petition, the second and third respondents who are the beneficiaries of the declaration of the result, vary issues with the petitioners.
He added, “The second respondent in his reply to the petition countered all the petitions pleaded in the case of the issue. The third respondents countered the petitioners’ allegations in paragraphs 36, 37 and 40 in his reply to the petition.
“Non-compliance means failure to or refusal to do something that you are officially or statutorily required to do. The Electoral Act 2022 in an explicit manner has laid clear ground on which election can be questioned in section 134 thereof and section 135 which looks like a provision to section 134.
“For proper appreciation of the intention of the law, sections 134 and 135 of the Electoral Act must be considered together.”
Electoral Act sections
Section 134 (1) says that an election may be questioned on any of the following grounds-A person whose election is questioned was, at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the election; the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of this Act.
“And 135 (1) says “An election shall not be liable to be invalidated by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of this Act if it appears to the Election Tribunal or Court that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the principles of this Act and that the non-compliance did not affect substantially the result of the election.”
That said, Justice Adah further held that “This ground of non-compliance with the Electoral Act has been in all our election laws even when we had a parliamentary system of government.”
Adah, who read the ruling on objections against the petition, expunged several documents tendered by Atiku on the grounds that the exhibits were made during the pendency of the petition.
The tribunal equally expunged from the court’s records several key witnesses presented by Atiku for having been made in manners not known to law.
It held that the wrongful mode adopted by the Adamawa-born presidential candidate in the construction of the petition made several paragraphs liable for expunging due to lack of merit.
The court went further to strike out some portions of the reply filed by Atiku and his party, including the part where they accused Tinubu of having dual citizenship.
It also rejected the aspect where the petitioners claimed Tinubu was not qualified on the grounds of alleged criminal conviction and criminal forfeiture in the US.
The court held that the information contained in the reply was an attempt to smuggle in fresh evidence to cover for the information they failed to provide in their petition in support of their claim that Tinubu was not qualified.
It declared that the two witnesses’ statements and other documents filed along with the reply were inadmissible.
Delivering judgment in some objections argued by Tinubu’s lead counsel, Wole Olanipekun SAN, Justice Ugoh averred that several parts of Atiku’s petition could neither stand nor survive, hence, is incompetent.
In a similar judgement pronounced on Obi’s petition, the court stated that the former vice president failed to provide several facts fundamentally required to support his petition.
It said the PDP candidate failed to name the places where ballot boxes were snatched, the ways and manners the BVAS machines were manipulated, and specific polling units where the alleged malpractices happened.
Atiku, who claimed to have polled the majority of lawful votes, was said to have failed to state in strong terms, the total lawful votes he claimed to have scored.
Though the former VP alleged that Tinubu did not score the majority of lawful votes, the court said he failed to reveal the perceived lawful votes in his petition to the tribunal.
The panel recalled that the petitioner made grievous allegations against Governor Yahaya Bello of Kogi State and the Chairman of Olamaboro Local Government Area of Kogi, Friday Adejoh, but he neglected to join them as respondents in his petition.
Justice Ugoh held that the failure to join the governor who was accused of electoral fraud obstructed the petition because the governor was denied the opportunity to defend himself as required by law.
Therefore, the justice dismissed the allegations of over-voting nationwide by the petitioner saying such pleadings run foul of the law because he failed to mention the specific locations where the alleged over-voting took place.
Atiku’s petition was also faulted for introducing several facts and allegations in unlawful ways that caught the respondents unaware, adding that the tactic employed was unfair and made him clever by half.
Amongst the new facts he was said to have wrongfully introduced were the allegations of certificate forgery, criminal conviction, and dual citizenship of Guinea made against Tinubu outside the mode of filing a petition.
By Okey Maduforo, Awka
The planned visit of the First Lady of Nigeria, Senator Oluremi Tinubu, to Anambra State has sparked controversy following a protest by the state Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Senator Emma Anosike, that the party was not informed about the visit.
Anosike said the APC in Anambra was never consulted or briefed about the proposed visit, adding that the party was taken aback by reports that the wife of the party’s national leader and presidential candidate, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, would be visiting the state without recourse to the state chapter.
He said, “It is indeed strange that the First Lady of our presidential candidate is visiting Anambra State without recourse to the party in the state.
“The party wishes to state categorically that we are not part of the arrangements for the reception of our First Lady, Senator Oluremi Tinubu, because the party was never put in the picture.”
Anosike also dismissed the mantra that “The Progressives Are Working Together”, being canvassed by the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), describing it as a smokescreen by the ruling party in Anambra to hijack President Tinubu’s re-election from the APC.
He said, “For instance, the APGA-led government in Anambra State did not interface with us on the organisation of the visit, and the party wonders if the progressives are indeed working together.”
The APC chairman, however, said the development would not compromise the First Lady’s visit, urging all APC members and supporters in the state to turn out and give Senator Oluremi Tinubu a warm welcome.
He stressed that despite the party’s reservations over the arrangements, APC members remained committed to welcoming the First Lady to Anambra State.
Former Deputy Governor of Bauchi State, Sagir Saleh, has resigned his membership of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
Saleh, who served as deputy governor under former Governor Isa Yuguda, announced his resignation in a letter submitted to the party leadership in Katagum Local Government Area.
He cited personal reasons for his decision but did not provide further details.
His exit comes amid growing disagreements within the Bauchi APC following the party’s 2027 governorship primary. Other prominent members, including former governorship aspirant Bala Jibrin and Sunusi Kunde, an associate of Coordinating Minister of Health and Social Welfare, Prof. Ali Pate, have also reportedly left the party.
Jibrin, a former National Auditor of the defunct Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), resigned on August 31, 2026, following his opposition to the emergence of former Bauchi Governor Muhammad Abubakar as the APC’s 2027 governorship candidate.
He had criticised the primary process and questioned how the candidate emerged.
Kunde also resigned from the APC in August, submitting his resignation to the party chairman of Beti Ward in Misau Local Government Area.
The latest departures are coming as efforts continue to resolve internal disputes and disagreements among APC members in the state.
The Leader of INRI Evangelical Spiritual Church, Primate Elijah Ayodele, has raised the alarm over an alleged plot to assassinate former Anambra State Governor, Peter Obi, and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar ahead of the 2027 general election.
Ayodele issued the warning in a video shared on his verified X account on Sunday, urging both opposition figures to strengthen their security and remain vigilant.
The cleric did not identify those allegedly behind the purported plot but claimed that attempts were being made to eliminate Obi and Atiku.
According to him, divine intervention would prevent the alleged plan from succeeding.
“Obi and Atiku, be very conscious of your security. They are looking for any means to eliminate Obi and Atiku.
“But God will never allow it to happen. Watch out and be cautious about your security,” he said.
Ayodele also urged President Bola Tinubu to reconsider travelling to the United States, alleging that there were forces in America working against his political fortunes.
The claims come as political activities and realignments intensify ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 general elections.
Why the Igbo Must Choose Political Strategy Over Emotional Politics
By Emma Igwe
There comes a moment in the political history of every people when sentiment must give way to strategy.
For the South-East, 2027 may be that moment.
The question before the Igbo nation is not whether an Igbo man should one day become President of Nigeria. Of course he should. The question is whether the Igbo people are prepared to do the difficult political calculations required to make that aspiration a reality.
And that is where the 2027 presidential election becomes more than a contest between political parties.
It becomes a referendum on the political intelligence of the South-East.
Will the region continue to vote primarily to satisfy ethnic emotions and demonstrate loyalty to its own?
Or will it begin to think several political moves ahead—like a chess player who understands that sometimes the best way to capture the king is to first control the board?
THE HARD TRUTH THE SOUTH-EAST MUST CONFRONT
Peter Obi has demonstrated something remarkable.
He has shown that an Igbo politician can generate extraordinary enthusiasm among millions of Nigerians, particularly young people. His political movement has changed the conversation about presidential politics and created a new generation of politically conscious voters.
But enthusiasm is not the same thing as electoral mathematics.
The South-East must ask a difficult question:
Can regional popularity, without a sufficiently broad and durable national coalition, deliver the presidency?
That question is not an attack on Obi.
It is the central question of Nigerian politics.
The same principle applies to Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso. His influence in Kano and parts of the North is considerable. Historically, Mallam Aminu Kano demonstrated how powerful regional political mobilisation could become.
But regional strength alone has never been enough to guarantee the Nigerian presidency.
Nigeria is a federation of competing interests.
The presidency is won by coalition.
And the Igbo must learn to build coalitions without surrendering their identity.
AZIKIWE, EKWUEME AND THE POLITICS OF REALISM
History provides the South-East with a political textbook.
Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe was one of Nigeria’s most influential nationalist leaders. Yet his enormous stature and regional influence did not automatically translate into the presidency.
Alex Ekwueme took a different route.
In the Second Republic, he became Vice-President through a political arrangement that placed an Igbo leader at the very heart of the federal government.
That distinction is important.
Zik represented the grandeur of the national dream. Ekwueme demonstrated the power of political positioning.
The lesson is not that the Igbo should abandon presidential ambition.
The lesson is that presidential ambition must be accompanied by political architecture.
This is precisely why the David Umahi argument deserves a more sophisticated examination than the usual name-calling that accompanies it.
UMAHI’S POLITICAL GAMBLE
Like him or hate him, David Umahi understands one fundamental principle of politics:
You cannot negotiate from the margins if you want to control the centre.
His decision to work with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has attracted criticism from many quarters of the South-East.
But political history will ultimately judge whether that decision was merely opportunistic or whether it represented a calculated attempt to reposition the South-East within Nigeria’s governing establishment.
As Minister of Works, Umahi is also uniquely positioned to make the infrastructure argument.
The Federal Government says major road and bridge projects are currently being executed across Ebonyi and the wider South-East, including sections of the Calabar–Ebonyi–Benue–Nasarawa–Abuja corridor and the Ndi-Egbe Bridge linking Ebonyi with Cross River.
Umahi has repeatedly argued that the Tinubu administration is reversing decades of infrastructure neglect in the region. In June 2026, he specifically cited projects that he said had remained unrealised for decades.
These claims should be scrutinised, not blindly accepted.
But neither should they be dismissed simply because they come from a politician whose political position many people dislike.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT LOVING TINUBU
Here lies the fundamental misunderstanding.
The argument for the South-East supporting Tinubu in 2027 does not have to mean that every Igbo man suddenly becomes an APC loyalist.
It does not mean that every policy of the Tinubu administration must be applauded.
It does not mean that the South-East should surrender its independent political voice.
It means something much more sophisticated:
The South-East should negotiate with power instead of permanently positioning itself outside power.
There is a difference between loyalty and strategy.
A political party is not a religion.
A presidential candidate is not a tribal deity.
Politics is transactional.
Every serious political region negotiates.
The Yoruba negotiate.
The North negotiates.
The South-South negotiates.
Why should the Igbo be the only people expected to vote purely from emotion?
THE 2031 CALCULATION
This is where the debate becomes particularly interesting.
If Tinubu wins in 2027, the political conversation will inevitably move toward the succession question.
Who takes over after Tinubu?
Which region?
Which coalition?
Which political bloc has accumulated sufficient goodwill, influence and bargaining power to negotiate the next presidential arrangement?
The South-East cannot wait until 2031 before asking these questions.
The political preparation must begin in 2027.
That is the strategic argument behind Umahi’s position.
If the South-East becomes a critical component of the governing coalition in 2027, it potentially creates a stronger negotiating platform for the future.
That does not guarantee an Igbo presidency.
Nothing in Nigerian politics comes with such a guarantee.
But it may create a better platform from which to negotiate one.
And that is the difference between political fantasy and political strategy.
THE BIGGEST MISTAKE WOULD BE TO TURN OBI AND UMAHI INTO ENEMIES
There is perhaps a more important question.
Why must Peter Obi and David Umahi be treated as political enemies simply because they have chosen different routes?
They are both prominent Igbo political figures.
One has demonstrated extraordinary grassroots mobilisation and national visibility.
The other currently occupies one of the most influential positions in the federal infrastructure establishment.
One understands mass political mobilisation.
The other understands the mechanics of government and federal power.
Why should these strengths not be brought together?
Why must the argument always be:
Obi versus Umahi?
Why can’t it become:
Obi and Umahi—what is the best strategic route for the Igbo nation?
The two men do not have to belong to the same political party.
They do not have to endorse the same presidential candidate.
They do not even have to agree on every issue.
But they can sit down as Igbo leaders and discuss the future beyond their personal political ambitions.
That conversation is long overdue.
THE SOUTH-EAST NEEDS A POLITICAL RESET
The greatest danger facing the South-East is not that it supports the wrong candidate.
It is that it continues to approach Nigerian politics primarily through the prism of emotional solidarity.
Every election becomes:
“This is our turn.”
“This is our brother.”
“This is our son.”
But Nigeria does not operate on sentiment.
The presidency is a national institution.
To occupy it, you need national numbers.
To acquire national numbers, you need alliances.
To sustain alliances, you need political relevance.
And to achieve political relevance, you must be present where national decisions are being made.
That is the political centre.
THE PRICE OF PERMANENT OPPOSITION
The South-East has spent years complaining about marginalisation.
Yet political marginalisation cannot be defeated by political isolation.
That is the paradox.
You cannot complain that Abuja is ignoring you while simultaneously refusing to develop a sustainable strategy for influencing Abuja.
You cannot demand inclusion while permanently behaving as though participation in the governing coalition is a betrayal of your identity.
The Igbo are too politically sophisticated for that contradiction.
The region must move beyond the politics of grievance to the politics of negotiation.
WHAT SHOULD THE IGBO DEMAND FROM TINUBU?
If the South-East is to support Tinubu, it should not be a blank cheque.
It should be a contract of political expectations.
The region should demand:
accelerated completion of strategic federal roads and bridges;
stronger federal presence in industrial and economic development;
greater political inclusion;
protection of businesses and investments;
improved security and regional connectivity;
greater representation in national appointments;
deliberate inclusion in future national power-sharing negotiations; and
a credible pathway toward greater political participation in the post-2027 era.
That is how mature politics works.
You do not merely vote. You negotiate.
UMAHI’S MESSAGE MAY BE UNCOMFORTABLE—BUT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
Umahi has reportedly urged South-East political stakeholders to rally behind Tinubu in 2027, and has even framed the choice in terms of continued access to federal development projects.
That formulation will certainly provoke controversy.
But perhaps controversy is precisely what the South-East needs.
For too long, political debate has been reduced to accusations of betrayal.
Anyone who disagrees with the dominant regional political position is quickly labelled an enemy of the Igbo cause.
That mentality must end.
A political argument should be defeated with a better political argument—not with abuse.
If Umahi is wrong, prove that his strategy cannot deliver greater political influence.
If Obi is wrong, demonstrate why his strategy cannot build the coalition necessary to win the presidency.
But let the debate be about strategy, not personality.
THE CHOICE BEFORE THE SOUTH-EAST
The South-East now stands at a crossroads.
One road offers emotional satisfaction.
The other offers strategic uncertainty but potentially greater access to the political centre.
One says:
“Let us vote for our own because he is our own.”
The other asks:
“What political arrangement gives our people the greatest bargaining power?”
The second question is the question of statesmen.
The Igbo presidential dream should not be abandoned.
It should be redesigned.
It should be negotiated.
It should be built upon alliances stretching across the six geopolitical zones.
And if supporting Tinubu in 2027 can place the South-East in a stronger bargaining position for 2031 and beyond, then the question should not be whether such a strategy is emotionally satisfying.
The question should be whether it is politically intelligent.
LET UMAHI AND OBI SIT DOWN
Ultimately, this debate should not end with Tinubu.
It should begin with the future of the Igbo nation.
David Umahi and Peter Obi should sit down.
Not for a television debate.
Not for political combat.
Not to determine who is more popular.
They should sit down as two influential Igbo sons and ask one question:
“How do we get the Igbo nation back to the centre of Nigerian political power?”
If the answer requires supporting Tinubu today, let them say so.
If the answer requires another route, let them articulate it.
But let the South-East have the conversation.
Because the real tragedy would not be losing an election.
The real tragedy would be winning the argument for ethnic pride while losing the opportunity for political power.
The Igbo do not need another election of emotional satisfaction.
They need a political strategy.
And perhaps, for the first time in decades, the South-East must learn to choose not merely the candidate it loves—but the political arrangement that can take it where it wants to go.
National relevance must become more important than ethnic ego.
That is the uncomfortable conversation 2027 demands.
The African Democratic Congress has unveiled its governorship and deputy governorship candidates for the 2027 general elections in 28 states.
The party announced the candidates in a statement on Friday, saying they would fly the ADC flag in the various states and provide Nigerians with what it described as a credible alternative in the forthcoming elections.
Among the prominent candidates unveiled are Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour in Lagos State, Isa Mohammed Ashiru in Kaduna, Great Ogboru in Delta, Senator Ahmad Babba Kaita in Katsina and former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, in Kebbi.
Other states where the party has fielded candidates include Adamawa, Kano, Rivers, Oyo, Ogun, Plateau, Zamfara, Enugu and Ebonyi.
The ADC said the candidates were selected as part of its efforts to present credible leadership and offer Nigerians a “real alternative” ahead of the 2027 elections.
The full list is as follows:
- Abia: Kalu Kalu Agu — Governor; Alozie Ogadinma Darlington — Deputy Governor
- Adamawa: Modibbo Hammantukur Ribadu — Governor; Aguwa Kevin Iliya — Deputy Governor
- Akwa Ibom: Akpanudoedehe John James — Governor; Nsien Mkpombuk Tommy — Deputy Governor
- Bauchi: Senator Halliru Dauda Jika — Governor; Sama’ila Mohammed Kabir — Deputy Governor
- Benue: Rt. Hon. Herman Iorwase Hembe — Governor; Abba John Abba — Deputy Governor
- Borno: Babagana Buhari — Governor; Mamman Dauda — Deputy Governor
- Cross River: Nkoyo Toyo — Governor; Okwoche Andrew Adagbor — Deputy Governor
- Delta: Chief Great Ogboru — Governor; Afiari Gloria — Deputy Governor
- Ebonyi: Ukpai Mba Udeh — Governor; Onwe Daniel Ede — Deputy Governor
- Enugu: Ocho Obodoeze Chukwuma — Governor; Eze Arinze Christopher — Deputy Governor
- Gombe: Bala Bello — Governor; Bala Sani Isa — Deputy Governor
- Jigawa: Sabo Mohammed Nakudu — Governor; Musa Ya’u Balarabe — Deputy Governor
- Kaduna: Isa Mohammed Ashiru — Governor; Kantiok Irmiya Ishaku — Deputy Governor
- Kano: Ibrahim Ali Amin — Governor; Shehu Abdulkadir Bari — Deputy Governor
- Katsina: Senator Ahmad Babba Kaita — Governor; Aminu Yar’adua Ahmed — Deputy Governor
- Kebbi: Abubakar Malami — Governor; Zagi Musa Mohammed — Deputy Governor
- Kwara: Zakari Mohammed — Governor; Olawuyi Julius Olayide — Deputy Governor
- Lagos: Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour — Governor; Gbadamosi Babatunde Olalere — Deputy Governor
- Nasarawa: Nuhu Angbazo — Governor; Ahmed Yusuf — Deputy Governor
- Niger: Dr Mohammed Kpautagi — Governor; Musa Mamman — Deputy Governor
- Ogun: Biodun Collins Ogundipe — Governor; Muraina Oluwaranti Oluyemi — Deputy Governor
- Oyo: Taofeek Adegboyega Adegoke — Governor; Wahab Adeniyi — Deputy Governor
- Plateau: Brig. Gen. John Sunday Sura — Governor; Pwajok-Kele Chundung Bitrus — Deputy Governor
- Rivers: Gabriel Pidomson — Governor; Okumgba David Amapakaye — Deputy Governor
- Sokoto: Manir Mohammad Daniya — Governor; Isah Bello Ambarura — Deputy Governor
- Taraba: Abubakar Umar Tutare — Governor; Kwetishe Haruna Kwenyan — Deputy Governor
- Yobe: Kassim G. Gaidam — Governor; Kori Lawan Mohammed — Deputy Governor
- Zamfara: Shinkafi Bilyaminu Yusuf — Governor; Muhammad Abdulmuddalib Auwal — Deputy Governor
The party said the candidates would work under its platform to advance its agenda and present voters with an alternative ahead of the 2027 governorship elections.
-
News4 days agoMajor Generals to Receive Up to ₦25.91m Yearly as Tinubu Approves New Military Pension Structure
-
Crime4 days agoMurder of Aiza Nwosu: Niece, 12 Suspected Cultists Arrested, Nephew at Large
-
News4 days agoAnambra Community Petitions Soludo Over Erosion Caused by Illegal Sand Mining
-
Crime4 days agoAnambra Police Deny N600,000 Bribe Demand, Explain Arrest of Suspected Cultist’s Sister
-
Politics4 days ago2027: Former Deputy Governor Resigns From APC
-
Entertainment4 days agoDavido Reveals How Dangote Drove His Mother Home
-
News2 days agoFCC Urges Enugu Youths to Prepare for Federal Job Opportunities
-
Politics4 days ago
Anambra APC Sidelined Over First Lady’s Visit, Says Chairman Anosike