₦airaland Forum

HIGHESTPOPORI:
Obi is your nightmare.

Thank you for confirming one of the central points of the article. 😁

The article discussed how many Obidients often respond to criticism not with facts or counterarguments, but with slogans, projections and personality cult reflexes.

I wrote several paragraphs.

Your response was:

"Obi is your nightmare."

That's it.

No rebuttal.

No evidence.

No engagement.

Just a slogan.

Now for the rhetorical question:

Obidients talk about Tinubu morning, afternoon and night. By your logic, does that mean Tinubu is their nightmare?

Of course not.

Discussing, analysing or criticising a politician does not make him your nightmare.

Otherwise, political commentators would spend their lives being haunted by the people they discuss. 😂

My brother, your response is like a student who receives a three-page examination question and answers by writing only his candidate number.

You did not challenge the argument.

You merely illustrated it.

Validated:
Clap for yourself ... 7 momths is not too long again. Infact you should be very happthat Tinubu is now the new rave.

My brother, clap for yourself. 😁

You have beautifully demonstrated the very point of the article.

The thread is titled "The Obi Wave: From 2023 Tsunami to Electoral Drizzle."

The article discussed election results, vote patterns, Anambra, Edo, bye-elections and the inability of the Obi movement to convert enthusiasm into structure.

Your response?

"Tinubu! Tinubu! Tinubu!"

Not a single counterpoint.

Not a single fact.

Not a single rebuttal.

Just the ritual chanting of Tinubu's name like a political rosary. 😂

This is why Obidients struggle in debates.

When confronted with uncomfortable facts about Obi , they immediately change the subject to Tinubu.

The article was about Obi's declining electoral performance.

You responded by proving it.


Thank you for your contribution.

You have helped my case more than yours.

UrPapa:
the system made Obidients who they are
The Nigerian youth has longed for hope even before they were born
But instead of them to find answers in themselves, they rather look for another savior
The Utopia they crave isn’t the work of any politician, it’s in the work of each citizens
America isn’t great because they had a leader that was a saint, it’s because each citizens took responsibility of their immediate community

Just like every worker, you want to amass enough wealth from your line of work therefore politicians will always be politicians as long as we are in democracy
One reason I’ll always applaud Tinubu is the Local Government autonomy
It’s easier to confront your local government official and councilors about the road leading to your house and other basic amenities are easier to demand knowing the amount of allocation disbursed to your LG
Getting your pvc shouldn’t be to wait every 4yrs to make a decision. If in every community, at least 50% has their pvc, it’s easy to to create community group that make demands on how the community should be
Little community groups like that can join hand and make higher demands from Governors till the top

No democratic society is corruption free
But lack of accountability breeds absolute corruption which is the main problem with this country
Politicians just like any other profession will spend your money when you don’t demand accountability about it
Your local government is receiving about 500m in allocation and no one is asking about it
The people that should ask all want to go to Abuja to chase clout. Local chairman will spend it and heaven will not fall

This is the most intelligent defence of Obidients I have seen so far, but it still proves my point.

Yes, the Nigerian system created mass frustration. Yes, young people are desperate for hope. Yes, citizens must stop waiting for messiahs and start demanding accountability from councillors, chairmen, governors and presidents.

On that, I agree.

And yes, Tinubu deserves credit for pushing local government autonomy. The Supreme Court’s July 2024 judgment affirmed financial autonomy for Nigeria’s 774 local governments and stopped governors from withholding council funds. That is a major accountability tool.

But here is where your argument turns against Obidients.

If the problem is that Nigerian youths keep looking for saviours, then what exactly is the Obi movement?

Is it not the clearest example of political messiah worship?

Peter Obi was sold as the pure redeemer who would magically fix Nigeria. Yet he struggles to articulate specific alternatives beyond “Tinubu bad.” He called existing party structures “structures of criminality,” only to later align with the same old political class he once condemned.

So either Obidients are victims of the same saviour syndrome you described, or Peter Obi exploited their hunger for hope.

You cannot condemn messiah politics generally and exempt the loudest messiah movement in modern Nigerian politics.

That is the contradiction.

Local accountability is the future.

But Obi worship is not accountability.

It is just another version of waiting for one man to save everybody.

mrvitalis:
Name one thing just one that Obidient do or have done that APC guys haven’t done worse

Just one

My Goodness! You Obidients can deflect for Africa!!. 😁

I know exactly what you are trying to do. It is straight from the Obidient playbook:

Deflect. Derail. Change the subject.

I wrote an article about the behaviour, psychology and tactics of the Obidient movement.

Instead of addressing a single point raised, you immediately jumped to:

But what about APC?"

That is not a rebuttal. It is an escape route.

Whether APC supporters have done worse, better or the same is completely irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of the points I raised.

If I write an article about armed robbery, the response is not:
"Name one thing kidnappers have not done worse."

Address the argument.

Did I misrepresent Obidient behaviour?

Did I invent the abuse culture?

Did I invent the messianic tendencies?

Did I invent the constant persecution complex?

Did I invent the tendency to attack neutrals who refuse to worship Peter Obi?

Those are the questions.

You see, one hallmark of a confused bully-mob is its inability to engage criticism directly.

Everything becomes:
"What about APC?"

"What about Tinubu?"

"What about Buhari?"

Anything except the subject under discussion.

So thank you for beautifully demonstrating one of the very traits the article was describing.

You didn't rebut it.

You performed it. 😂

The Obi wave of 2023 was real. But the evidence after 2023 suggests that it has seriously waned, especially when tested outside presidential emotion.

In 2023, Peter Obi turned Labour Party into a national protest vehicle. But since then, the party has struggled to convert that emotional wave into durable electoral structure.

The first major test came in the 2023 off-cycle governorship elections in Imo, Bayelsa and Kogi. Labour Party failed to reproduce its presidential momentum. Then came Edo 2024, where LP’s Olumide Akpata finished third with **22,763 votes**, far behind APC’s **291,667** and PDP’s **247,274**.

In Ondo 2024, APC won with **366,781 votes**, PDP came second with **117,845**, while LP was not a serious factor in the contest.

The August 2025 bye-elections were even more revealing. APC swept the majority of seats, while APGA, PDP and NNPP picked some wins. Labour Party did not demonstrate anything close to a national wave.

Then came the biggest embarrassment: Anambra 2025. In Obi’s home state, Soludo won with **422,664 votes**, APC scored **99,445**, while LP’s George Moghalu managed only **10,576**. LP also lost Peter Obi’s own polling unit.

That is the story.

The Obi wave was powerful as protest politics.

But elections after 2023 show it has not matured into structure.

As our elders say: the flood that cannot return to the river becomes ordinary water.

Obidients had noise.

Soludo, APC, PDP and others showed structure.

And in politics, structure outlives sentiment.

APC vs Nigerians in the Mud: The Ballot Box Keeps Refusing to Cooperate by CharlesCNG

For months, we have been treated to a daily sermon from social media warriors, YouTube prophets and political motivational speakers.

"APC has been rejected by Nigerians."

"Tinubu is finished."

"The North has abandoned APC."

"Nigerians are angry."

Apparently, nobody informed the voters.

First came Kano. Dawakin Kudu/Warawa Federal Constituency delivered a landslide to APC.

Then came Kebbi. Zuru Constituency also forgot that it was supposed to join the funeral procession.

Then Ondo South.

Then Enugu North.

Then Nasarawa North.

And finally Ekiti, where the APC proceeded to secure over 85 percent of the vote.

Landslide after landslide.

At this rate, one is tempted to ask: exactly which Nigerians are APC fighting in the mud?

The Nigerians on Twitter?

The Nigerians on YouTube?

The Nigerians represented by Dele Momodu's weekly prophecies?

Because the Nigerians showing up at polling units appear to have misplaced the rejection memo.

And, predictably, the excuse factory has resumed operations.

"Incumbency."

"Bread."

"State power."

Anything except the possibility that perhaps social media applause and actual political support are not the same thing.

The opposition has spent three years speaking on behalf of Nigerians.

The ballot box has now begun speaking for Nigerians.

And reality, that stubborn enemy of propaganda, keeps interrupting the obituary writers.

As always, votes speak.

Echo chambers merely echo.

And the funeral of APC, once again, has been postponed by the voters themselves.

ariesbull:
There is a popular saying: "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Although the quote is often attributed to George Carlin, its true origin remains uncertain. Carlo M. Cipolla perhaps expressed the idea more accurately when he wrote: "Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals."

In many ways, Nigeria seems to illustrate this point. Some may find that statement offensive, but uncomfortable truths often provoke discomfort before reflection.

Nigerians are a fascinating people. Not all, but many appear trapped in a cycle of political self-sabotage. They repeatedly elect leaders whose policies they later criticize, then lament the resulting economic and social hardships. It raises an important question: why do people continue supporting systems and politicians that consistently fail to improve their lives?

Psychology recognizes a phenomenon in which individuals repeatedly engage in behaviors that harm their own interests. While it would be inaccurate to clinically diagnose an entire population, one cannot ignore the tendency among many Nigerians to support political choices that repeatedly produce disappointing outcomes.

The issue becomes even more interesting when discussing leadership and regional development. The South-East, despite its challenges, has demonstrated remarkable resilience and progress in several areas. Yet many Nigerians, particularly in parts of the North and South-West, appear reluctant to embrace the possibility of leadership emerging from that region.

Whether justified or not, there remains a deep-seated skepticism toward Igbo political leadership. Ironically, many indicators suggest that the South-East has consistently produced examples of innovation, enterprise, and community-driven development.

To understand this, one only needs to visit many South-Eastern cities and communities. Compare the level of organization, cleanliness, and infrastructure in cities such as Owerri, Enugu, Aba, Onitsha, and Umuahia with many urban centers elsewhere in the country.

During a recent visit to Owerri, I observed a level of order that stood out. Traffic violations were less common, public spaces appeared cleaner, and street disorder seemed less prevalent than in many larger cities. Enugu State's efforts to modernize revenue collection and promote technology-driven governance have also attracted attention. Abia State has pursued ambitious digitalization projects and infrastructure development, while the region as a whole continues to invest heavily in education and entrepreneurship.

Historically, the South-East has distinguished itself in educational achievement. Schools from the region have repeatedly excelled in national and international competitions, particularly in mathematics, science, and technology. Literacy rates across several South-Eastern states rank among the highest in the country.

Economically, the region has shown remarkable resilience. Much of its development has been driven not by federal intervention but by private enterprise, community investment, and a culture that emphasizes hard work and self-reliance. The entrepreneurial spirit of the Igbo people is widely recognized throughout Nigeria and beyond.

Security is another area often highlighted. While no region is completely free from security challenges, several studies and reports have ranked the South-East favorably compared to other parts of the country in terms of human security and social stability.

Urbanization data has also shown the South-East to be among the most rapidly urbanizing regions in Nigeria. Cities continue to expand, commercial activity remains vibrant, and economic networks stretch across the country and beyond.

What makes this progress particularly noteworthy is the culture of accountability that exists in many communities. Political leaders often face intense scrutiny from citizens who expect visible performance. In many areas, public office is viewed as a responsibility that must produce measurable results rather than merely confer status.

This raises an important question: why do many Nigerians remain hesitant about national leadership emerging from the South-East? If leadership should be judged by competence, development outcomes, and administrative performance, then every region should be evaluated fairly and objectively.

Nigeria has been led by politicians from different regions for decades. Yet many of the country's most pressing problems—poverty, insecurity, unemployment, poor infrastructure, and weak institutions—remain unresolved. It is therefore reasonable to ask whether alternative leadership perspectives deserve a genuine opportunity.

Supporters of Peter Obi often point to his tenure as governor of Anambra State, citing improvements in education, healthcare, fiscal management, and security. Whether one agrees with his politics or not, many acknowledge that his record offers measurable achievements worthy of discussion.

Ultimately, democracy functions best when voters evaluate leaders based on competence, integrity, vision, and results rather than ethnicity, religion, or historical prejudice. Nigeria's future depends not on which ethnic group produces the next leader, but on whether citizens are willing to prioritize performance over sentiment.

The real question is not whether an Igbo person should lead Nigeria. The real question is whether Nigerians are prepared to embrace leadership that delivers results, regardless of where it comes from.

Merit, Not Mythmaking: A Response to “Will Igbo Make A Good President? by CharlesCNG

That article tries to sound objective, but it quietly slips into the very ethnic romanticism it claims to rise above.

Its first problem is tone. Once you begin by insulting Nigerians as politically self-sabotaging and then imply that hesitation about an Igbo presidency is proof of irrationality, you are no longer making a calm democratic argument. You are talking down to the people you want to persuade. That is not statesmanship. That is condescension with keyboard polish.

Its second problem is logic. A visit to Owerri or admiration for Aba’s enterprise does not settle the question of presidential fitness. Regional resilience, commercial energy, and private initiative are admirable, but they do not automatically translate into national leadership capacity. Regions do not contest elections. Individuals do.

Its third problem is selective evidence. On literacy, even the broad Nigerian data often cited does not simply crown the South East. A UNESCO summary of Nigerian literacy data says Lagos led adult literacy in the referenced survey. On security, the South East is not the uncomplicated success story the article suggests. Reuters reported that sit-at-home enforcement linked to separatist actors has been associated with over 700 deaths since 2021, alongside serious instability in places like Imo.

The real issue, then, is simple: Nigerians do not need ethnic advertising. They need proof of judgment, coalition-building, national balance, and executive temperament. If Peter Obi wants to be president, let him be defended on those grounds. Not on soft claims of regional exceptionalism.

nairalanda1:
I still stand by what I said, good man. Without a cost reflective tarrif, you cannot attract investment, and you cannot pay off debts, pay for gas, pay for transmission improvements, and so forth

Also, in my original post, I talked about energy theft , AND how it needs to be dealt with. Guess you didn't read the post

Better stop being in denial...there has to be cost reflective tarrif, or you will never see light, never see money to improve the issues you talked about

Better face the truth. Your government is running away from effing reality.

I am not in government, so stop with the childish “your government” line. I support this government’s reform direction because I believe the hard corrections are necessary. And on the narrow issue you raised, I actually agree with you: in the long run, cost-reflective tariffs are the way to go. A power market cannot survive forever if tariffs do not cover costs. That part is not controversial.

Where you are being simplistic is pretending that there are only two options: either full tariff shock immediately, or permanent darkness. That is false. The government is clearly pursuing a gradual transition, not running away from reality. Reuters reported that the Band A tariff reform already cut electricity subsidies by 35%, generated about ₦700 billion in extra revenue, and reduced the tariff shortfall from ₦3 trillion to ₦1.9 trillion. NERC’s own 2025 orders also state that federal policy is for a[b] gradual transition[/b] to cost-reflective tariffs, with safeguards for poorer consumers.

So yes, eventually the sector must get to full cost-reflective pricing. But after fuel-subsidy removal and FX reforms, government is trying to phase the pain strategically instead of detonating everything at once. That is why Band A came first.

And there is more movement than your denial allows. Sector-wide, NERC’s 2025 Q2 report said DisCos improved collection efficiency from 74.39% in Q1 to 76.07% in Q2, while the 2025 Q3 report showed a further rise to 80.70%. That is not perfection, but it is progress.

Even Abuja DisCo (AEDC/Abuja) improved from 76.36% collection efficiency in Q2 2025 to 81.60% in Q3 2025, and later recorded 83.11% in Q4 2025. So yes, energy theft and weak collections remain real problems, but it is simply false to pretend nothing is moving. On metering too, NERC has kept pushing the Meter Acquisition Fund, and approved ₦28 billion in late 2025 for metering outstanding Band A customers. In other words, the government is not denying reality; it is moving, though gradually, on tariffs, collections, and metering all at once.

So at least acknowledge the progress. Your principle on tariffs is right. Your refusal to admit that the government has already moved meaningfully in that direction is where your argument becomes selective.

Gentleman2theco:
State Police would be rendered useless just like amotekun and other vigilante groups.
It would be rendered ineffective because it's would be compromised by non indigenes and infiltrators.

What would be effective is INDIGENOUS POLICE. A state when just only people of the land would police their land hereby protecting their people and relatives even right their lives.
To indigenous Police, it's 'either the terrorists or their family '
Anybody would be ready to die to protect his family and not the families he's not related to.
Don't let some tribes force themselves on us all by chief monitoring the situations and solutions.
They are already engineering ways to subvert it.

What you have done is reject a workable reform because it is not a perfect reform. That is how countries remain stuck. There is no perfect policy. The choice in real governance is usually between an improvement with safeguards and a bad status quo that is already failing.

State police has clear benefits. It brings policing closer to the communities being terrorised. It improves local intelligence, faster response, better knowledge of terrain, language, and criminal patterns. That is exactly why Nigeria’s parliament advanced the state-police bill in June 2026: to decentralise policing in response to worsening insecurity.

State Police will improve emergency response and intelligence-gathering across Nigeria’s very different security theatres.

Now to your “indigenous police only” idea. That is not a serious national model; it is a recipe for exclusion, vendetta, and ethnic policing. A police force is supposed to enforce law, not bloodline. Once you make it purely “sons of the soil,” you risk turning security into clan loyalty instead of constitutional duty. Nigeria needs law-governed policing, not tribal militias in uniform.

And your Amotekun point actually weakens your case. The lesson from outfits like Amotekun and vigilante groups is not that local security is useless; it is that local security without full constitutional powers, stable funding, clear command, and professional standards will always be limited. State police is meant to go beyond that halfway house.

So the real question is simple: do we keep a failing over-centralised system because reform may be imperfect, or do we improve it with legal safeguards?
Refusing improvement because it is not flawless is like refusing to repair a leaking roof because the carpenter is not an angel. That is not wisdom. That is paralysis.

mohbadliveson:
The recent clash between Senator Adams Oshiomhole and Senate President Godswill Akpabio has once again thrust the former Edo state governor into the national spotlight.

During a heated senate session, Oshiomhole challenged procedural decisions and openly confronted the senate leadership, prompting many Nigerians on social media to celebrate him as a fearless truth-teller willing to challenge authority.

The confrontation is believed to be linked to the senate’s recent amendment of its standing rules, which introduced stricter eligibility requirements for leadership positions in the 11th Senate.

Following a closed-door session, the senate amended Orders 4 and 5 of its Standing Rules, tightening eligibility for presiding and principal offices. Under the new provisions, only senators who have served at least two consecutive terms immediately preceding nomination are eligible to contest for presiding offices. Nominations must also follow a ranking order, from former Senate Presidents to second-term senators.

The amendments effectively disqualify Oshiomhole and other first-term senators from contesting for key leadership positions.

Since then, the former national chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC) has granted several interviews in which he publicly challenged Akpabio and disclosed details about internal Senate affairs, including issues surrounding the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.

But before Nigerians crown Oshiomhole the conscience of the Senate, it is worth examining his political journey and asking whether his current posture is driven by principle or political convenience. It is also fair to ask: Does Oshiomhole desire the office Akpabio currently occupies?

Oshiomhole is presenting himself as a senator unwilling to remain silent in the face of what he considers procedural irregularities. To his admirers, this demonstrates courage. To his critics, however, it raises a more difficult question: why now?

For many younger Nigerians, Oshiomhole is being rediscovered through viral senate clips that portray him as combative, outspoken and willing to challenge powerful interests. Those who have followed his career over the last three decades know that his public image has often shifted with his political circumstances.

Oshiomhole first rose to national prominence as president of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC). During the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, he became one of the country’s most visible opposition figures, leading protests and labour actions against government policies.

At the height of his influence, it often appeared as though Nigeria had two centres of power. Oshiomhole could declare a nationwide strike, and millions of Nigerians would comply despite threats from the federal government.

His image as a defender of ordinary Nigerians earned him widespread public support. Such was his popularity that Professor Itse Sagay (SAN), former chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC), once encouraged him to challenge Obasanjo in the 2003 presidential election.

That reputation helped propel him into elective office as governor of Edo State, where he served for eight years.

However, governing proved different from activism.

One of the most enduring controversies of his tenure involved Joy Ifije, a widow whose goods were confiscated by government officials in 2013 for a traffic-related violation. When she pleaded for leniency, Oshiomhole infamously told her to “go and die”.

The comment sparked national outrage. Although he later apologised, provided financial assistance, offered her employment opportunities and promised support for her children, the damage had been done.

For many Nigerians, the episode exposed a striking contrast between the labour leader who spoke passionately on behalf of ordinary people and the governor wielding the authority of the state.

It highlighted an enduring reality of politics: those who speak most passionately for the masses do not always govern with the same compassion once they acquire power.

This is why the current enthusiasm surrounding Oshiomhole’s Senate interventions deserves a more critical examination.

Consider his defence of Reno Omokri’s ambassadorial nomination. At a time when many Nigerians opposed the nomination because of Omokri’s previous remarks about President Bola Tinubu and perceived ideological inconsistency, Oshiomhole emerged as one of its defenders.

He argued that Omokri’s willingness to reassess his views and promote Nigeria abroad reflected political maturity and patriotism.

Whether one agrees with that assessment is beside the point. What matters is that Oshiomhole was prepared to support a controversial nominee despite significant public opposition. The episode illustrates a recurring feature of Nigerian politics: politicians often defend positions that align with prevailing alliances while presenting those decisions as matters of principle.

The same scrutiny should be applied to Oshiomhole’s current conduct in the senate. His allegations about procedural irregularities and his criticism of certain Senate actions have generated considerable public attention. Yet critics are entitled to ask why some concerns are raised loudly while others receive little or no attention. If transparency and accountability are truly the guiding principles, consistency should be expected.

This is particularly relevant given that questions about due process, disciplinary procedures and internal power struggles have long been recurring features of legislative politics in Nigeria. These issues did not suddenly emerge yesterday.

Consequently, when Oshiomhole speaks today, citizens should not merely applaud. They should also interrogate. Why was he silent on some issues and vocal on others? Why do certain controversies attract his intervention while others do not? Are his positions driven by principle or by calculations of political advantage? These are legitimate questions in any democracy.

Unfortunately, Nigerian politics often encourages hero worship. Once a politician says something that aligns with public frustration, many citizens quickly elevate that individual into a symbol of integrity. Historical records are forgotten, and accountability becomes selective.

The danger is that politicians are allowed to reinvent themselves repeatedly without fully accounting for their past actions.

Oshiomhole is hardly the first Nigerian politician to benefit from this phenomenon, nor will he be the last.

The tendency to judge politicians solely by their latest soundbite rather than by their overall record has contributed significantly to Nigeria’s political stagnation. Citizens become trapped in cycles of disappointment because they evaluate leaders based on rhetoric rather than consistency.

A politician’s credibility should not be measured by how loudly he criticises others today. It should be measured by whether he applied the same standards when he held power, when his allies were under scrutiny and when speaking out carried genuine political risks.

This broader perspective is essential when assessing Oshiomhole’s latest confrontation with the senate leadership.

The media may portray a dramatic clash between two powerful political figures, but the deeper story concerns the selective nature of political outrage in Nigeria. Oshiomhole’s critics see a politician who has rediscovered the language of accountability only after finding himself on the opposite side of certain political equations. His supporters see a courageous truth-teller. The truth may lie somewhere in between.

What Nigerians should resist, however, is the temptation to treat any politician as a saint simply because he occasionally says what the public wants to hear.

Adams Oshiomhole has occupied many positions throughout his public life — labour leader, governor, party chairman and senator. His record, like that of most Nigerian politicians, contains moments that supporters celebrate and moments that critics find deeply troubling.

That record deserves careful examination.

To some Nigerians, Akpabio may appear the worst senate president in Nigeria’s history based on his penchant for rubber-stamping anything and everything from the presidency, but I doubt if Oshiomhole will be different if he eventually becomes the Senate President.

Democracy is strengthened not when politicians are cheered uncritically, but when citizens evaluate them with consistency. The same standards applied to Akpabio, Tinubu, Obasanjo or any other public figure should also be applied to Oshiomhole.

Only then can public accountability move beyond personalities and become a genuine democratic principle.

Akinsuyi, former group politics editor of the Daily Independent, writes from Abuja. He can be reached via shabydayo@gmail.com
https://www.thecable.ng/is-oshiomhole-really-fighting-for-nigerians-or-for-akpabios-seat/

I largely agree. If Senator Oshiomhole truly has ambitions for the Senate Presidency, then he is going about it the wrong way.

One cannot burn down the house in order to chase away a rat.

His recent conduct and public utterances suggest that he has not entirely shed his old labour union "Aluta" instincts. Agitation and confrontation may have their place in union activism, but the Senate is a collegiate institution built on consensus, procedure, and mutual respect among equals.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the leadership or aspiring to higher office. Indeed, internal contestation is part of democracy. But taking internal disagreements to the media and portraying the institution itself as dysfunctional risks diminishing the Senate in the eyes of the public.

The Senate Presidency is not won through perpetual agitation or by setting colleagues against one another. It is earned through patience, coalition-building, and the confidence of fellow senators.

Those cheering Oshiomhole today should remember that there is a difference between fighting for reform and fighting in a manner that weakens the very institution one seeks to lead. A man seeking to inherit a house ought not to be seen setting fire to its foundations.

When the Bully Starts Crying: The Obidient Problem.

One of the most revealing things about the Obidient movement is not only what it says, but how it behaves. It is loud when attacking others, but fragile when the same fire is returned. That contradiction is not accidental. It is the psychology of a confused bully-mob.

A normal political movement accepts scrutiny as part of democracy. A bully-mob accepts scrutiny only when it is directed at others. Once attention turns toward its own camp, it begins to squeal about persecution, bias, and unfairness. That is why Obidients can spend months mocking Tinubu, Atiku, Soludo, APC, ADC, NDC, and almost anybody who disagrees with them, yet suddenly become emotional when Peter Obi receives sharp criticism in return. What changed? Nothing — except the direction of the cannon.

That is how mob bullies behave. They do not really believe in free speech, robust debate, or scrutiny as a principle. What they want is a monopoly of aggression. [/i]They want to throw stones without hearing the sound of broken glass behind them. They want the right to mock, insult, and pressure everybody else, but they do not want anybody else to answer in the same language. [i]So they keep trying to occupy two opposite moral positions at once: fearsome aggressor on Monday, helpless victim by Tuesday.

That is why their politics often looks confused. Yesterday, negative attention to Tinubu meant accountability. Today, negative attention to Obi means obsession. Yesterday, sharp criticism was civic courage. Today, it is “too much focus” on a private citizen.

The deeper danger is that this behaviour produces political delusion. Once a movement begins to romanticize all criticism as proof of secret strength, it loses the ability to self-correct. Instead of asking, “Why are people pushing back against us?” it begins to flatter itself with fantasies: “We are too important. They are afraid of us. The attacks prove we already won.”

That is how movements detach from reality. They stop studying voters and begin studying enemies. They stop building persuasion and begin rehearsing victimhood.

In the end, a bully-mob is always shocked by resistance because it mistakes its own noise for moral superiority. But noise is not virtue. Aggression is not argument. And mob energy is not leadership.
The Obidient problem, therefore, is not merely that they are loud. It is that they are loud without symmetry — eager to dish out scrutiny, but unable to digest it when it returns.

naptu2:
https://guardian.ng/politics/ebonyi-ndc-crisis-deepens-as-deputy-chairman-others-resign/

https://www.nairaland.com/8690738/ndc-rescue-party-rescue-thyself

For a party that wants to deliver Nigeria, NDC is spending an embarrassing amount of time trying to deliver itself from itself.

Now we are told that Dickson and Obi have “resolved” their dispute after a three-hour closed-door meeting. For a new party, that is hardly a badge of strength. It is more like a newborn baby already needing family intervention before it has even learned how to sit. A platform that has barely arranged its own chairs is already promising to rearrange the entire furniture of the federation.

That is the comedy of NDC.

It was advertised as a fresh rescue vehicle, but from the beginning it has looked more like a borrowed bus full of restless passengers fighting over the front seat. First came the drama of defections, then the quarrels over tickets, then the Aisha Yesufu noise, then the Dickson boundary-drawing, and now a “closed-door peace meeting” as if the party is already an old house full of inherited bitterness.

There is a proverb for this: **the man who cannot carry his own mat should not boast of carrying the market stall.**

If this is what NDC looks like before the real campaign even starts, what will happen when governorship tickets, presidential strategy, zoning fights, and regional egos begin to clash fully? A party that needs emergency reconciliation before it can even settle into itself should be humble in its language of national redemption.

Because the truth is simple:

NDC has not yet shown Nigeria a government-in-waiting. It has only shown Nigeria a quarrel-in-progress.

And that is the putdown at the heart of it all:
Before NDC talks of delivering Nigeria, it should first prove it can survive itself without another closed-door rescue operation.

MATV:
I Know Where They Were Moved To" — Sowore Makes Fresh Claim About Abducted Oyo Schoolchildren Before Court Remands Him (VIDEO)

Human rights activist and former presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore has been remanded at the Kuje Correctional Centre following a fresh court order.

However, what is generating even more attention online are the claims he made shortly before being taken into custody.

According to Sowore, the schoolchildren and teachers abducted during the attack on schools in Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo State may no longer be in their original location.

In a video currently circulating online, the activist alleged that the victims had been moved elsewhere and suggested that he had information about their alleged whereabouts.

The claim has sparked widespread reactions as families, residents, and concerned Nigerians continue to demand the safe return of the abducted pupils and teachers.

Meanwhile, Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja ordered Sowore's remand at Kuje Correctional Centre pending the hearing of his application seeking to overturn an earlier court order that revoked his bail and issued a bench warrant against him.

Observers also noticed that Sowore arrived prepared for the possibility of detention, appearing with a travel bag and expressing confidence that he would regain his freedom.

His latest remarks have now raised several questions:

🔹 What exactly does Sowore know about the abducted victims?

🔹 Should security agencies investigate the information he claims to have?

🔹 Could his comments help ongoing rescue efforts?

🔹 What impact will his remand have on the conversation surrounding the kidnapping?

The attack on the schools in Oriire shocked many Nigerians after dozens of pupils and teachers were reportedly abducted, while lives were also lost during the incident.

As the legal battle involving Sowore continues, public attention remains fixed on both his court case and the fate of the abducted schoolchildren.

WATCH THE FULL VIDEO HERE:
[
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHidPPw7Ucc](
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHidPPw7Ucc)

What do you think?

Should authorities investigate Sowore's claims immediately?

Do you believe citizen activists can play a role in helping security agencies tackle kidnapping?

Drop your thoughts below.

Sowore and the Tragedy of Performative Activism . by CharlesCNG

There is a difference between activism and performance.

Real activism is measured by outcomes. Performative activism is measured by attention.

Real activists focus on victims. Performative activists focus on themselves.

This is where the style of Omoyele Sowore deserves critical examination.

No one can deny that Sowore has consistently projected himself as an activist. But after decades of outrage, protests and revolutionary rhetoric, one must ask: what institutional gains, policy victories or sustainable movements has all the noise produced?

Increasingly, his activism appears trapped in a cycle of perpetual outrage, media spectacles and internet applause.

Every issue becomes a stage.

Every tragedy becomes content.

Every disagreement becomes a revolution.

The objective seems less about persuasion and more about performance.

Indeed, outrage itself has become the product.

That is the danger of performative activism.

It creates followers, not institutions.

It rewards grandstanding, not strategy.

It monetises anger but rarely converts it into lasting change.

The activist becomes the story, while the victims fade into the background.

History shows that serious reforms are achieved through organisation, coalition-building, legal challenges, advocacy and patient political engagement—not endless live streams and revolutionary catchphrases.

Nigeria needs courageous voices.

But courage without discipline becomes theatre.

And activism without results eventually degenerates into content creation.

As our elders say, the loudest drummer is not always leading the procession.

Sometimes, he is merely entertaining the crowd.

And nations are not transformed by spectatorship.

They are transformed by substance.

franvincoop:
Why did Obi not tell Buhari to resign?
Why did Obi - lying machine, the copy and paste politician only wait for Starmer to resign before talking about it?

You know, when they say you Obidients think scenarios in your head and just start celebrating, that's the truth.
If not, how would you say Peter Obi will resign when Presidency is not written in his destiny?
You are talking in future past tense oga.
Igboman will never be even Gateman in Aso Rock.
Did Obi resign when he messed up Anambra and was impeached as Governor for "gross misconduct"? Or na Yorubas impeach Obi?
Whether you know Obi personally or not cannot cook an egg.

You can never be Tinubu so don't ever say if I was Tinubu, the only way to remove Tinubu is to vote Obi in 2027 and hope he does not come 3rd.
Wishing for a coup or begging for his resignation is like crying over spilled milk.
How do you expect someone with 8.7 million votes to resign because your Obi says so or because you so wish it?
Precedence kwa? Campaign promises ni? Integrity ko?
Tinubu does not need your remembrance for such boldness and sincerity of purpose, keep it for your 3rd class Obi with his 3rd class degree and 3rd place in 2023.
The good record you want Presidents to set with honorable exits, just wait till 2031 it's not far. When Fulani enter in 2031, go yarn this ammonia gas then but for now it's Tinubu till 2031.


You guys are already begging when campaign never start.
Una no fit win Tinubu again?
You guys have moved from coup to Trump to resignation?
What your next move?
I even want Tinubu to do 3rd term cuz I wan make una get piles for eye.

Dissecting the Obidients: The Psychology of a Confused Bully-Mob by CharlesCNG

When the Bully Starts Crying.

One of the deepest problems with the Obidient movement is not only what it says, but how it behaves. It is loud, fearless, and aggressive when attacking others, yet suddenly fragile when the same criticism is turned back on Peter Obi. That contradiction is not accidental. It is the psychology of a confused bully-mob.

A normal political movement accepts scrutiny as part of democracy. A bully-mob accepts scrutiny only when it is directed at others. That is why Obidients can spend months mocking Tinubu, Atiku, Soludo, APC, ADC, NDC, and almost anyone who disagrees with them, but once Obi becomes the subject of sharp criticism, they start squealing about persecution, bias, and obsession. Nothing really changed except the direction of the cannon.

This is how mob bullies behave. They do not truly believe in free speech or robust debate. What they want is a monopoly of aggression. They want the right to attack, insult, and pressure everybody else, but they do not want anybody else to answer in the same language.

The danger is that this behaviour breeds delusion. Instead of asking why people are pushing back, they flatter themselves with fantasies: “We are too important. They are afraid of us. The attacks prove we already won.”

That is how movements detach from reality. They stop studying voters and begin studying enemies. In the end, a bully-mob is always shocked by resistance because it mistakes its own noise for moral superiority. But noise is not virtue, and aggression is not argument.

Bossladyy:
Peter Obi x Tinubu

SOURCE

Dissecting the Obidients: The Psychology of a Confused Bully-Mob by CharlesCNG

When the Bully Starts Crying.

One of the deepest problems with the Obidient movement is not only what it says, but how it behaves. It is loud, fearless, and aggressive when attacking others, yet suddenly fragile when the same criticism is turned back on Peter Obi. That contradiction is not accidental. It is the psychology of a confused bully-mob.

A normal political movement accepts scrutiny as part of democracy. A bully-mob accepts scrutiny only when it is directed at others. That is why Obidients can spend months mocking Tinubu, Atiku, Soludo, APC, ADC, NDC, and almost anyone who disagrees with them, but once Obi becomes the subject of sharp criticism, they start squealing about persecution, bias, and obsession. Nothing really changed except the direction of the cannon.

This is how mob bullies behave. They do not truly believe in free speech or robust debate. What they want is a monopoly of aggression. They want the right to attack, insult, and pressure everybody else, but they do not want anybody else to answer in the same language.

The danger is that this behaviour breeds delusion. Instead of asking why people are pushing back, they flatter themselves with fantasies: “We are too important. They are afraid of us. The attacks prove we already won.”

That is how movements detach from reality. They stop studying voters and begin studying enemies. In the end, a bully-mob is always shocked by resistance because it mistakes its own noise for moral superiority. But noise is not virtue, and aggression is not argument.

There is something revealing in Peter Obi’s old threat to sue over the leaked Oyedepo conversation. He publicly denied the “Yes Daddy” audio, called it fake, and threatened legal action. That part is on record. But years later, the political memory remains more alive than the lawsuit itself. And that raises a fair question: was the threat about justice, or was it about leading on an already excitable support base? Obi said he would sue. Fine. Nigerians are entitled to ask: what came of it?

More interestingly, one should ask: did Bishop Oyedepo himself ever publicly come out to say the conversation never happened? I have not seen a clear public denial from him in the material available. That matters because once the principal figure in the audio does not loudly reject it, the burden shifts back to the politician who made the loud legal threat.

This is what makes the whole episode look less like resolve and more like theatre.

And then there is the Obidient factor. The movement thrives on outrage, thrives on emotional mobilisation, and thrives on a permanent siege mentality. It behaves like an online street-thug culture in fine grammar: always ready for battle, always eager to attack, always convinced that aggression is proof of truth. That is why every controversy around Obi becomes a crusade instead of a sober test of evidence.

As for Obi himself, his real problem is that too often he talks first, threatens next, and leaves the facts panting behind him.

A man cannot keep putting his foot in his mouth and then blame critics for noticing the limp.

esnbrutality:
Please show me where you did this indepth analysis of TINUBU the obvious drug dealer, identity theft merchant, criminal etc etc.

Show me where you scrutinized TINUBU as a person that claims to LOVE NIGERIA.

Shameless people

Read the title of the thread again and try to stay on it. Where exactly did the thread mention Tinubu? This is the usual Obidient contrick: once Peter Obi is the subject of scrutiny, you people immediately try to drag Tinubu into the room like a man caught cheating who suddenly starts shouting about his neighbour’s wife.

That is not rebuttal. That is deflection.

Deflection means avoiding the issue on the table and trying to change the subject because you cannot answer the actual point being made. And that is exactly what you have done here. The thread is about Peter Obi. If you have a defense for Peter Obi, make it. If not, stop running around the topic like a headless mob beating dust into the air.

Obidients can create one thousand threads on Tinubu and spend morning till night scrutinizing him. Nobody stops them. But the moment one thread turns the searchlight on their fake lord and master, they start squealing, changing subject, and dragging in unrelated accusations as if confusion can replace argument.

You are behaving like a student who was asked to solve algebra but started writing the history of his village because he had no answer to the question.

So again: read the thread, face the point, and stop this confused mob habit of trying to escape every scrutiny of Peter Obi by shouting “Tinubu, Tinubu” like a broken village gong.

If you cannot answer the substance, just say so and move on.

aswani:
I like as Obidients are so vocal on social media verbally torching everyone, but as soon as the canon is turned on them and their messiah Peter Obi, they start sqealing about how much attention he is receiving and how he is a private citizen.

On more than one occasion, they have used the negative attention they help harvest for him as proof that he won in 2023.

Laughable if it wasn't that these people are walking amongst us and not doing so in chains or with a mark on their head clearly identifying them.

I agree. What you are describing is the classic behaviour of a confused bully-mob.
Such groups love aggression only when they control the direction of it. They are loud, mocking, and fearless when they are the ones throwing the stones. But the moment the same scrutiny, ridicule, or political fire is turned back on them, they suddenly change language. What was “accountability” yesterday becomes “persecution” today. What was “speaking truth to power” becomes “too much attention” once their own camp is under pressure.

That is the psychology of mob bullies. They are not really committed to free expression, robust debate, or scrutiny as a principle.

What they want is a monopoly of aggression. They want the right to attack everybody else, but they do not want anybody else to answer in the same language. That is why their reactions often look confused: they are trying to enjoy two opposite moral positions at once.

They want to be feared like aggressors and pitied like victims.

The deeper problem is that this behaviour creates political delusion. Negative attention is reinterpreted as proof of relevance, and hostility is romanticized as evidence of stolen victory.
That is how movements detach from reality. Instead of asking, “Why are people reacting this way?” they flatter themselves with the fantasy that all criticism must mean they are secretly winning.

In the end, a bully-mob is always shocked by resistance because it mistakes its own noise for moral superiority.

They are not defenders of scrutiny; they are addicts of one-way aggression. Once the fire returns, the bully suddenly rediscovers the language of victimhood.

esnbrutality:
Atiku is NOT a thief again according to YORUBA people again?

WizardOfNG...you go write tire...

Tinubu will be Maduro'ed and when it happens ...come and seek for support. Then you will see what will befall you .

Nonsense

Your response actually proves the article.

I did not mention Yoruba people anywhere. You are the one who dragged tribe into a discussion about political strategy. That is the usua obidientsl escape route: once the point becomes uncomfortable, inject ethnicity, throw insults, and[b] hope noise can replace argument[/b].

The point was simple: APC/Tinubu and Atiku’s camp are not fighting like Obidients on social media because they know elections are won more by structure, governors, local alliances, and polling strength than by endless online hysteria. That is not tribal; that is political reality. APC party’s strength still rests heavily on incumbency and state structure. Current public tallies show APC governors dominating the map, with around 31 states under APC governors in 2026, not some tiny ethnic corner.

As for your “Maduro” fantasy, that is just another pipe dream from people who seem to prefer Tinubu out of office by any means except the ballot.
But politics is not won by emotional curses. It is won by votes, structures, and lawful process.
And the irony is that while some of you are busy daydreaming about regime-collapse scripts, the U.S. and Nigeria have actually deepened security cooperation, with Reuters reporting U.S. surveillance support and AP reporting U.S. troops being sent to train Nigerian forces. That is partnership, not isolation.

So calm down. Tribal fumes are not rebuttal. “Maduro” talk is not strategy. And Peter Obi’s people should worry less about fantasy overthrow plots and more about the hard truth they keep running from: they are scared of real elections because hashtags are easier to command than polling units.

lecowas:
It is not a deflection, you typed as if you know nothing about the "law of honor". You have created this thread just to mock Peter Obi for saying Yes daddy. That's pathetic. He knows how he gets his things done and u're not in a position to mock him if you are not even near his level.

Yes, it was a deflection. Deflection is when somebody avoids the actual issue on the table and drags the discussion into another lane so that the real point does not get examined. That is exactly what you did. The issue was not “law of honour” in the abstract, and the purpose of the write-up was not to mock Peter Obi for saying “Yes Daddy.”
To be fair, Peter Obi often does enough damage to himself each time he opens his mouth on sensitive matters without anyone needing to manufacture mockery for him.

In democracy, nobody needs to “reach Peter Obi’s level” before questioning him. A man seeking to lead over 200 million people must be open to scrutiny from ordinary citizens, not protected by choir members carrying incense.

Justnation:
PETER OBI made an honest and patriotic statement concerning nnamdi kanu and the persistent security challenges.
What PETER OBI said have been echoed by many truthful Nigerians.
Igboho is freely walking around, while Nnamdi kanu is in prison.
Shame on Anambra government whose spokesman was talking nonsense about PETER OBI comment on Nnamdi kanu.
What PETER OBI said is the obvious truth.

Yes, it was a deflection. Deflection is when somebody avoids the actual issue on the table and drags the discussion into another lane so that the real point does not get examined. That is exactly what you did. The issue was not “law of honour” in the abstract, and the purpose of the write-up was not to mock Peter Obi for saying “Yes Daddy.” To be fair, Peter Obi often does enough damage to himself each time he opens his mouth on sensitive matters without anyone needing to manufacture mockery for him.

One of the clearest signs of political maturity is knowing where the real battle lies. That is why APC/Tinubu and the Atiku wing of ADC have not thrown themselves into the same endless social-media warfare that has become the trademark of many Obidients.

The reason is simple: serious political operators know elections are not won mainly on timelines, but on structures, governors, local leaders, polling agents, party cohesion, and grassroots reach.

The same logic applies to Atiku’s camp. Whatever one thinks of him, Atiku’s politics has always been rooted more in elite networks, regional bargaining, governors, and party machinery than in social-media theatre. Even the recent opposition turbulence reported by Reuters and AP shows that the real question for anti-Tinubu politics is not who trends more online, but who can hold a coalition together in the real world.

That is the difference.

APC and Atiku’s camp may criticize each other, but they are not foolish enough to mistake social media for the battlefield itself. They know the real war is fought in state houses, party offices, ward meetings, stakeholder rooms, local alliances, and polling-unit organization.

Gotocourt:
This is the comedy of permanent relocation. He is like a man who has married four wives and insists each divorce proves his moral purity. At some point, the village must ask whether the problem is always the wives or the man who keeps arriving with wedding clothes in one hand and resignation letter in the other.

Kenneth Okonkwo does not join parties; he rents them until the next press conference.
“Every party he leaves becomes a failed marriage, and every new party becomes the promised land — until rent expires..
His politics is Living in Bondage: Coalition Edition.

HIGHESTPOPORI:
I have gone through your page and didn't see any thread of you criticizing the mosque and Muslim muslim ticket

Precisely because I am a Christian, my first duty is to hold the church to the standard of Christ and Scripture.
I do not need to begin with the mosque before speaking about the church, because judgment begins with the household that claims to carry the light. If a so called man of God says, Thus saith the Lord,” when the Lord has not spoken, that is not politics alone; that is spiritual recklessness.

The pulpit of our Lord Jesus Christ is not meant to become a political podium. The church is not a campaign office. The altar is not for partisan mobilisation. When the church turns itself into a machinery of political agitation, it stains its own witness. That is why the “what about them?” argument fails. If the mosque gets something wrong, that is no permission slip for the church to copy error.

The church is called to be light, not echo. Light does not ask darkness for permission to shine, and it does not borrow darkness as an excuse to dim itself.

So no, this is not hypocrisy. It is responsibility. I am speaking first about the church because the church is the body that claims Christ, claims truth, claims holiness, and claims moral authority. To whom much is given, much is required.

The question is simple: if the church cannot hold itself to a higher standard than the world, then what exactly is it leading the world to?

HIGHESTPOPORI:
But it's okay when Imams are doing it for Apc ,such a hypocrite no wonder you prefer the Muslim Muslim ticket,you don't want pastors to talk about politics

This is another lazy deflection. The issue is not whether imams or pastors should become partisan attack dogs. If an imam is wrong, say he is wrong. If a pastor is wrong, say he is wrong. Two wrongs do not become one righteousness because you are angry.

And as for the Muslim-Muslim ticket, stop using it like a permanent escape hatch for every argument. Nigerians already voted on that issue in 2023. The real question now is simple: should the church lower its own standard because it is bitter about the ticket? Is the church called to be light, or to copy what it condemns in others?

There is a proverb: the man who points at another person’s dirty cloth should first ask whether that dirt is enough reason to roll his own in mud.

So no, this is not hypocrisy. It is consistency. If the mosque is wrong, criticize it. If the church is wrong, criticize it too. But do not hide behind the Muslim-Muslim ticket as if that suddenly makes pulpit partisanship holy.

nairalanda1:
And he is stifling the hard work by refusing to allow cost reflective tarrifs.

When I say that you tinubu and obi supporters are alike, you go start to dey abuse me

We have been hearing the same story from you from previous administrations, yet all of them, including this one, refuse to remove subsides and price controls on power

When you do not do that, do you expect any improvement in power?

Go and read Prof Nnaji's quote again, and understand it. A business can only work if it makes a profit.

You are mixing half-truth with impatience and calling it wisdom. Yes, Prof. Barth Nnaji is right on one narrow point: a power business cannot survive forever if tariffs do not even cover costs. He recently argued for more cost-reflective tariffs and said the sector also needs restored PPAs, payment of legacy debts, and other reforms. So the issue is bigger than shouting “remove subsidy” as if that is one magic switch.

And this is where your argument weakens. Tinubu’s government has not refused to move on tariffs. It already raised tariffs for Band A customers in 2024, cutting electricity subsidies by 35%.
NERC’s own 2025 order also states[i] that federal policy is for a gradual transition to cost-reflective end-user tariffs[/i], with safeguards for poorer users. So the claim that this government is simply refusing cost-reflective tariffs is false. The truth is that it is moving there, but gradually, because a sudden full jump across all bands would trigger even worse public pain and non-payment.

The real problem with Nigeria’s electricity crisis is not tariff alone. It is a chain: legacy debts, weak remittances, gas supply, transmission bottlenecks, distribution losses, energy theft, and political fear of passing full costs to already suffering households. Even the sector’s debt-refinancing plan approved by government shows that unpaid legacy invoices from 2015 to 2023 have crippled investment.

Kukutente23:
Still throwing insults?
No one is debating whether it's national or city economy with you. Kindly share snippets of parts of the world bank documents you posted to buttress your baseless claims. I went through all of them and nothing of such is there.
Lagos can claim to be the largest economy in the world. That claim needs to be verified by independent organisations with expertise in that area. Talk as we all know is cheap
Nobody asked you for background or numbers
Just show where in the world bank documents you dropped that lagos was declared the second largest city economy in Africa.
Leave grammar and propaganda and do a decent job for once

You are mixing up two different things and then pretending the confusion is mine.

First, on the 15%–30% claim: it is right there in the World Bank Lagos Diagnostic. The report states: “While Lagos constitutes only 8% of Nigeria’s population, the state generates 15–30% of Nigeria’s GDP.” That is not grammar. That is the text.

Second, on the “second-largest” point: you asked for where the World Bank said Lagos is the second-largest city economy in Africa. Fair enough — that particular claim was not from the World Bank document. It came from the Lagos State government’s 2025 announcement that Lagos had reached about $259 billion PPP and had become Africa’s second-largest city economy. So if anyone bundled that claim together with the World Bank source, it should be separated properly.

So the honest summary is simple:

15%–30% of Nigeria’s GDP — supported by the World Bank.
Second-largest city economy in Africa — not from the World Bank source I cited; that one is from Lagos State’s own announcement.

That is what serious correction looks like.

What is not serious is shouting “baseless” when one claim is clearly supported and the other simply needed a cleaner source label. A man who finds one loose button should not pretend the whole shirt was never sewn.

So no, this is not the victory lap you think it is. It is just a case of you spotting one sourcing mix-up and then trying to convert it into total collapse. Nice try.

CodeTemplar:
may thunda faya that circumspect of yours. Has the mosques refrain from politics for one second in the last 66 years?

Your response is a deflection, not a defense. The issue on the table is not whether some mosques or imams have acted wrongly in politics. The issue is whether the[b] church[/b], which claims to be the light of the world, should copy what is wrong elsewhere and then call it righteousness.

If the mosque gets it wrong, does that suddenly make the church right?
If others descend into partisanship, is that now the standard for the body of Christ?
Since when did “they too are doing it” become the moral compass of the church?
Is the church called to imitate darkness or to expose it?
Is the pulpit now a campaign podium because somebody else misused his own platform?
When did Christ say, “Follow the mosque into politics if you feel left behind”?

That is the emptiness of your argument. It is the logic of a child caught stealing palm oil and replying, “But my neighbour’s son also steals.” That may explain behavior, but it does not justify it.

The church is supposed to be higher, cleaner, wiser. You are the light means you do not borrow your standards from people you accuse of doing wrong. Light does not ask darkness for permission to shine.

So the real question remains:
Should the church be guided by Scripture, conscience, and truth?
Or should it be guided by envy, rivalry, and “they too are doing it”?

If the answer is the second, then the church is no longer leading society. It is merely competing to be another version of its confusion.

lecowas:
Better face ur CNG refilling business rather than creating unnecessary posts up and down. Irrespective of our different political affiliation and ideologies, it is an undeniable fact that Peter Obi is an over-achiever and I don't think you and I have reached the pedestal to question his methods. Cheers!

That is the standard Obidient deflection: when you cannot answer the point, attack the person’s business, then kneel before Peter Obi as if criticism is reserved only for people who have “reached his pedestal.” No, sir. In a democracy, every presidential hopeful is open to scrutiny. That is the whole point.

And this “over-achiever” grammar is not an argument. Over-achiever in what sense exactly? Politics is not won by motivational labels. It is judged by judgment, structure, consistency, coalition-building, and capacity for national leadership. Those are the issues being raised, and you have answered none of them.

As for my business( CNG just happens to be one of my many ventures and is not even the main one), thank you. At least it is honest work.
Better that than living on borrowed worship and emotional blackmail for a politician who should be able to survive questioning without his supporters running into insult and pedigree-policing.

There is a proverb: when a man cannot defend his father’s house, he starts inspecting the visitor’s slippers. That is what you are doing here. Instead of defending Obi’s methods, you are discussing my trade.

So keep the cheers. What is needed here is not pomposity but substance. If Peter Obi is as solid as you say, defend his record and his methods. If not, stop using over-achiever incense to perfume weak replies.

Kukutente23:
Charles you need to do better instead of engaging in aggressive brickbats with no substance

In all your links, your baseless claim is missing. As a reminder, your claim is that lagos GDP us the second largest in Africa and more importantly, that it's 20-30% of Nigeria's GDP. None of the links you belabouredly provided backs this claim up.

Dropping links is easy. Read through and highlight your claims. You can post them as pictures for those that are pdf. The Britannica pages are the worst. You're not really good at your job

You are the one geetting it mixed up.

On “second-largest in Africa,” the claim is about city economy, not sovereign economy. Lagos State itself said in 2025 that its GDP hit about $259 billion (PPP), making it Africa’s second-largest city economy. If someone reads that as “second-largest national economy,” that would be wrong. But as a city-economy claim, it is publicly supported.

Dropping insults is easy too. Thinking is harder. I brought sources and then corrected the overstated part when challenged. That is what serious people do.
You, on the other hand, are behaving like a man who cannot read the map but is shouting at the compass. Britannica was used for background, World Bank for the numbers, and the correction was made openly. If that still confuses you, the problem is no longer my “job”; it is your comprehension. A dull blade always blames the butcher.

There is now a condition spreading through parts of Nigeria’s political opposition. It is called Tinubu Derangement Syndrome.

Its symptoms are easy to identify.

Once afflicted, the patient loses the ability to discuss Tinubu calmly. Judgment becomes cloudy. Priorities become scrambled. Every conversation, no matter the subject, ends in anger. Every policy debate becomes insult. Every disagreement is treated like a personal wound. Facts are no longer weighed; they are attacked. Evidence is no longer examined; it is abused. The mere mention of Tinubu produces a fever of outrage.

That is the syndrome.

A person suffering from Tinubu Derangement Syndrome does not ask, “What is the policy?” He asks, “How do I insult the man?” He does not compare alternatives. He compares enemies. He does not measure reform by whether it is difficult but necessary. He rejects it automatically because Tinubu’s name is attached to it.

In that state, even success becomes offensive. If reserves rise, they are angry. If roads are built, they are irritated. If a reform begins to stabilize the system, they become more restless. Why? Because once hatred becomes political identity, reality itself starts to feel like an enemy.

There is a proverb for such people: **the man who hates the drummer will soon begin to quarrel with the sound of the drum.**

That is where Tinubu Derangement Syndrome leads. It reduces politics to obsession. It turns citizens into hecklers, critics into ranters, and opposition into performance art.

A calm mind compares plans.
A serious mind studies results.
A disturbed mind sees only one thing: Tinubu.

And once that happens, the disease is complete.

Clobisman:
is it a coincidence that all the paid APC keyboard warriors are trying to sound the opposite of smart by deliberately ignoring the message but attacking the messenger? You can all try to justify your pays by calling Peter Obi all sorts of names but after you all should have a personal retrospect and see if what the former anambra state governor said is really a lie or you just all choose to be blinded by your personal benefits.

This is the classic Obidient escape route: once the substance becomes uncomfortable, everybody who disagrees is suddenly “paid APC keyboard warrior.” It saves you the stress of answering the real issue.

If Peter Obi said Tinubu should resign, then defend that statement with facts, constitutional seriousness, and a clear alternative — not payroll fantasies and emotional blackmail. Calling people “paid” does not make Obi right. It only proves you have no confidence in your own argument.

And the irony is rich: you accuse others of attacking the messenger while you are doing exactly that here. No answer to the message, only noise about who is speaking. That is not debate; that is intellectual dodging.

There is a proverb: when a man cannot kill the snake, he begins to beat the grass. That is what this reply is doing — plenty of movement, no real strike.

The question is simple: should a president resign because an opposition politician says so, or because the Constitution provides a lawful basis? If you have a serious answer, bring it. If all you have is “APC keyboard warriors,” then you have already confessed that your side came with insult because it could not come with substance.

In the end, suspicion is not evidence, shouting is not logic, and bitterness is not patriotism. If Obi’s statement is strong, defend it. If not, stop using conspiracy to perfume a weak case.