₦airaland Forum

What is lacking is fairness, understanding, and a willingness to make sacrifices. We keep searching for political solutions to what has already been given fundamentally a legal solution by the pronouncement of the supreme Court.

Warri is a shadow of its former self because of this same absence of fairness, understanding, and sacrifice. Major oil companies and many other businesses have relocated to more peaceful and hospitable environments, while potential investors continue to stay away. Yet, we seem determined to continue down the same destructive path.

It is quite sad because, tomorrow, we will blame the government for the poor state of the economy, forgetting the role our own actions have played in creating these conditions.

The truth is known by all involved. But instead of embracing it, some prefer to grandstand and play politics with the future of the people of Warri. In the end, it is the ordinary inhabitants who will bear the consequences.

Furthermore, the practice of disrupting the operations of oil companies whenever disputes arise is counterproductive and harmful. Such actions only worsen the nation's economic challenges and create opportunities for unscrupulous businesses to unjustifiably increase the prices of goods and services, placing an even greater burden on ordinary Nigerians.

This approach must stop. Oil companies are legal entities operating within the framework of the law and should not be subjected to harassment or intimidation. Where disagreements exist, they should be addressed through lawful, peaceful, and constructive channels that do not negatively impact the livelihoods of innocent people who have no connection to the dispute.

Sustainable development and economic growth can only thrive in an environment of stability, fairness, and respect for the rule of law.

searchng4love:
Wee you kip quayet dere. Y

Our growing intolerance for opposing views is deeply concerning. We cannot condemn the government for being intolerant of criticism while exhibiting the same behavior ourselves.

A healthy society is built on the free exchange of ideas, not the suppression of opinions we disagree with. We do not have to agree on everything, but we must learn to engage differing perspectives with reason, respect, and maturity.

The true test of our commitment to free speech is not how we treat opinions we like, but how we respond to those we oppose.

State police is not a guarantee of a crime-free society. Crime exists in countries with highly decentralized policing systems just as it exists in countries with centralized policing systems. The effectiveness of law enforcement depends less on who controls the police and more on the quality of institutions, accountability mechanisms, intelligence gathering, training, funding, and the rule of law.

While proponents of state police argue that it will bring security closer to the people and improve local intelligence, there are legitimate concerns about the potential for abuse. In a political environment where democratic institutions are still evolving, placing armed security structures directly under the control of state governments may create opportunities for political intimidation, suppression of opposition voices, election manipulation, and abuse of power.

The fundamental issue facing Nigeria's policing system is not merely its centralized structure but its lack of operational independence. A police force that is truly professional and independent should be loyal to the constitution and the law, not to politicians at any level of government. Whether the police are controlled from Abuja or from state capitals, political interference will continue to undermine effectiveness if institutional safeguards are weak.

What Nigeria urgently needs is a framework that guarantees the actual independence of the police. This should include transparent appointment processes, secure tenure for senior officers, independent oversight bodies, protection from political pressure, improved welfare for personnel, and strict accountability mechanisms for misconduct. Such reforms would allow law enforcement agencies to act professionally without fear or favor.

Security is ultimately a function of strong institutions rather than the level of government that controls them. Creating state police without first addressing the issues of accountability, professionalism, and political interference risks decentralizing the existing problems rather than solving them. The goal should not simply be to create more police forces, but to build security institutions that are independent, competent, accountable, and trusted by the citizens they serve.

A truly independent police force, backed by strong laws and oversight mechanisms, is more likely to deliver lasting security than merely transferring control from the federal government to the states.

Are we talking about the state of that silly governor who made that vexing statement that "even though they kidnapped all of us there is no vacancy in Asorock", we should be mindful of the kind of idiots give we our sovereignty.

I commend the DSS for this operation. It has potentially spared the nation another round of embarrassment and saved many families from untold grief and suffering.

I urge the government to focus more on protecting citizens and less on politics. Kidnapping and other violent crimes must attract swift and severe consequences to serve as a deterrent to others.

One thing Nigerians should not take away from our security agencies is that they are working. Unfortunately, their constitutional responsibilities are often overshadowed by political controversies and the negative consequences of political interference. Nevertheless, when they succeed in carrying out their primary duty of safeguarding lives and property, they deserve to be acknowledged.

Are talking about the state of that silly governor who made that vexing statement that "even though they kidnapped all of us there is no vacancy in Asorock", we should be mindful of the kind of idiots give we our sovereignty.

I commend the DSS for this operation. It has potentially spared the nation another round of embarrassment and saved many families from untold grief and suffering.

I urge the government to focus more on protecting citizens and less on politics. Kidnapping and other violent crimes must attract swift and severe consequences to serve as a deterrent to others.

One thing Nigerians should not take away from our security agencies is that they are working. Unfortunately, their constitutional responsibilities are often overshadowed by political controversies and the negative consequences of political interference. Nevertheless, when they succeed in carrying out their primary duty of safeguarding lives and property, they deserve to be acknowledged.

UrVillageChief:
I don’t have anything to say about this move by the Senate but this mentality of yours isn’t going to get us anywhere either.
So you mean if I had supported something bad in the past, I must keep supporting it just so I don’t look like a hypocrite in your eyes, right?
People change, ideas change, people learn and adjust constantly. Your argument is akin to saying that despite having realized fully that Jonathan was right about the fact that some crooks were feeding fat on our misery using the subsidy, Tinubu should not have removed it so as to not look like a hypocrite for once condemning its removal. No sir, a noble leader is the one who is ready to admit that he’s wrong and ready to adopt the law or policies he had once condemned if he later realized it would benefit his country and the masses.
You Nigerians have this funny idea that once you supported something in the past, you must keep doubling down even after realizing you are wrong. It’s a terrible trait. If you once supported a wrong cause, be brave enough to condemn it if you later realize you were wrong, it doesn’t make you a hypocrite but a man of value.

You may have misunderstood my position, perhaps because you've already formed certain conclusions in your mind.

Many of the policies the APC government is implementing today are the very same policies the Jonathan administration attempted to introduce but was heavily criticized for by many of the individuals who now occupy positions in government. Those policies were vilified then, yet today the same people have embraced them.

The question you should honestly ask yourself is this: Was their opposition back then driven by genuine national interest, or was it merely politics? I expect an honest answer to that question.

I agree that people can change their positions. In fact, there is nothing wrong with doing so when new facts, experience, or a deeper understanding of issues emerge. However, such a change should come with honesty and accountability. A leader or public figure who changes position should openly acknowledge that their earlier view was mistaken or based on limited knowledge at the time.

What is unacceptable is pretending that the past never happened or expecting people to ignore previous statements and actions. Don't insult our intelligence by assuming we have forgotten. If your position has changed, own it openly. There is far more honour in admitting you were wrong than in rewriting history.

One of the most disappointing realities of our politics is how often ideas are judged, not by their merit, but by who proposes them. I often wonder what has really changed over the years. During the administration of President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, the proposal for a single six-year term for elected executives generated intense opposition. Many politicians like mr Bamidele, who are today advocating similar reforms were among those who vigorously criticized and politicized the idea at the time.

This raises an uncomfortable question: Were the objections based on genuine concerns about the proposal itself, or were they driven by political calculations and partisan interests? When politicians reject an idea in one administration only to embrace it in another, it creates the impression that principles are secondary to political expediency. It suggests that some actors in our political system are more committed to power than to the pursuit of policies that advance the common good.

If public officials truly believe that a particular policy is beneficial for national development, intellectual honesty requires them to acknowledge when previous opposition was misplaced. Political maturity demands the ability to rise above partisan loyalties and admit that an idea has merit regardless of its source. Such humility would go a long way toward rebuilding public trust in government institutions.

What is particularly troubling is that these contradictions reinforce the belief that many politicians already know what is necessary for the country's progress. They understand the reforms needed to strengthen institutions, improve governance, and promote national development. Yet those reforms are often sacrificed on the altar of personal ambition, party loyalty, or the pursuit of political advantage.

This leaves many citizens asking how we arrived at a point where the administration of public power frequently appears disconnected from the public good. It is disheartening to witness the extent to which narrow interests can overshadow national priorities.

Perhaps part of the solution lies in changing our own approach as citizens. We must begin to think and act as stakeholders in a common national project rather than as members of competing political camps. The collective interest of the nation should outweigh partisan, ethnic, religious, or personal agendas. Policies should be evaluated on their merits, not on the political identity of those who propose them.

We must also cultivate the habit of supporting good governance wherever it is found. This does not mean abandoning criticism or accountability. On the contrary, governments should always be held accountable. However, there is a difference between constructive criticism aimed at improvement and opposition driven solely by political hostility.

As citizens, we should desire the success of every government, including those we did not vote for or those with whom we disagree politically. The reason is simple: when a government succeeds in delivering security, economic growth, infrastructure, and effective public services, the benefits extend to all citizens. Likewise, when a government fails, the consequences are borne by the entire nation.

This principle is reflected in Scripture as well. The prophet Jeremiah instructed the Israelites in exile to seek the welfare of the city where they lived, because their welfare was tied to its welfare (Jeremiah 29:7). Similarly, Christians are instructed to pray for rulers and those in authority so that society may enjoy peace and stability (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

A mature democracy requires citizens who can separate the fortunes of a political party from the fortunes of the nation itself. Governments will come and go, but the country remains. If we genuinely love our nation, we should pray for wise leadership, demand accountability, support good policies regardless of their source, and place the common good above partisan interests.

Only when we begin to think as citizens first and political partisans second can we hope to build a nation that serves the interests of all rather than the ambitions of a few.

There are many reasons for the growing insecurity in our country, and one of the most significant is the environment that has been created by successive governments. When criminality is not met with swift justice and appropriate consequences, it becomes attractive to those who believe they have little to lose. A society where crime carries minimal risk but potentially high rewards inadvertently creates incentives for more criminal behaviour.

Beyond law enforcement, economic realities also play a major role. While poverty does not automatically make someone a criminal, a nation that fails to create opportunities for its citizens inevitably increases the pool of people vulnerable to criminal recruitment and exploitation. Gainful employment, quality education, and economic empowerment are among the strongest long-term weapons against insecurity. When these are lacking, frustration, desperation, and social unrest often follow.

Unfortunately, these challenges are largely the result of poor leadership and weak institutions. Rather than focusing on delivering good governance, many political actors have mastered the art of diverting public attention. Whenever citizens begin to demand accountability, efficient governance, or solutions to pressing national problems, the conversation is often reframed along ethnic, religious, or regional lines. As a result, people who should be united in demanding better governance become divided into competing camps, defending politicians who have failed them.

The tragedy is that insecurity does not respect ethnic, religious, or political boundaries. The monster that is tolerated today because it appears distant will eventually affect everyone. The consequences of poor governance, corruption, and insecurity spread beyond the immediate victims. What starts as someone else's problem eventually becomes a national crisis.

This is why meaningful change requires a unity of purpose among citizens. Sadly, such unity remains elusive because many people view each incident of insecurity through the lens of identity politics rather than as an attack on the collective well-being of the nation. As long as victims are seen as "them" rather than "us," a coordinated national response will remain difficult.

I deeply sympathize with the victims of insecurity. Their suffering should remind us that the cost of indifference is far too high. Until citizens collectively demand competence, accountability, justice, and economic opportunity from those who govern, the cycle is likely to continue. The uncomfortable truth is that the insecurity we see today is not merely a security problem—it is the cumulative result of failures in leadership, governance, and national solidarity.

Eventually, the consequences of those failures will reach everyone. The chicken, as the saying goes, will come home to roost. When that day comes, it may be too late to wish we had acted sooner.

The controversy surrounding the publication of actor and politician Emeka Ike's voter information by Lere Olayinka should concern every Nigerian, regardless of political affiliation, ethnicity, or personal opinion about either individual.

This issue goes far beyond Emeka Ike. It is about the protection of citizens' personal information, the sanctity of government databases, and the dangerous precedent that is being set if such actions are tolerated.

Many people are approaching this matter from a political angle, asking whether Emeka Ike was right or wrong to contest in Abuja, whether Lere Olayinka was defending his political camp, or whether the information released was embarrassing to the actor. Those questions miss the central issue entirely.

The real question is simple:

How did a private citizen's voter information find its way into the public domain, and under what authority was it released?

Nigeria is not a lawless society. Citizens entrust sensitive information to government institutions for specific and lawful purposes. When Nigerians register to vote, they provide personal details with the understanding that such information will be protected and used solely for electoral administration.

Whether the information leaked includes a person's photograph, registration number, voter identification number, application details, or other personal records, the unauthorized publication of such information raises serious concerns.

Imagine a situation where government officials, political operatives, or individuals with privileged access can retrieve and publish the personal information of any citizen simply because they disagree with them politically. Such a society would be unsafe for everyone.

Today it is Emeka Ike.

Tomorrow it could be a journalist.

The next day it could be an activist.

After that, it could be an ordinary Nigerian who simply expressed an opinion online.

The frightening aspect of this controversy is not merely the publication itself, but what it reveals about access to sensitive databases. If political actors can obtain and circulate information from systems that ordinary Nigerians cannot access, citizens have every right to ask questions about data security and institutional safeguards.

Nigeria has witnessed a troubling rise in identity theft, cybercrime, kidnapping, fraud, and politically motivated intimidation. In such an environment, careless handling of personal information is not a trivial matter.

Those defending the publication often argue that candidates for public office are subject to scrutiny. That is true. Public scrutiny, however, does not mean unrestricted access to private data. There is a difference between examining documents lawfully made available for public inspection and publishing personal information obtained through channels that raise questions about authorization and data protection.

A democracy cannot function effectively when citizens fear that their personal information may be weaponized against them for political purposes.

This is why relevant authorities, including INEC, law enforcement agencies, data protection regulators, and other oversight institutions, should carefully investigate the circumstances surrounding this incident.

If no laws were broken, the facts should be made public.

If laws were broken, appropriate sanctions should follow.

The law must apply equally to everyone regardless of political influence, party affiliation, or proximity to power.

What is particularly disappointing is the number of Nigerians defending or condemning the incident solely based on political loyalties. Wrongdoing does not become acceptable because it benefits one's preferred political camp.

A violation remains a violation whether the victim is APC, PDP, Labour Party, NNPP, or any other political actor.

As citizens, we must resist the temptation to judge actions through partisan lenses. The question should never be, "Whose side is he on?" The question should be, "Is this right or wrong?"

If Nigerians normalize the unauthorized exposure of personal information today, we may all become victims of the same culture of impunity tomorrow.

This matter should not be about Emeka Ike versus Lere Olayinka.

It should be about protecting the privacy, dignity, and constitutional rights of every Nigerian.

A nation that cannot protect the personal information of its citizens is a nation that leaves its people vulnerable.

The rule of law, respect for privacy, and institutional accountability are not optional in a democracy. They are essential.

Everyone desires good governance. We all want competent leaders, functional infrastructure, security, economic prosperity, and a nation where justice prevails. Yet there is a troubling contradiction in our society: many people passionately advocate for good governance from the comfort of their homes while refusing to participate in the very process that produces it.

Good governance is not a spectator sport.
A nation does not become better simply because its citizens complain about bad leadership on social media. It does not improve because people endlessly discuss politics in churches, offices, markets, and online forums. Real change requires participation, sacrifice, and civic responsibility.

Too many Nigerians want others to bear the burden while they watch from the sidelines. They want activists to speak, journalists to expose corruption, and politicians to fix the country, while they themselves remain disengaged. That approach has never worked and never will.

Every citizen has a role to play in the development of society, and one of the most basic responsibilities in a democratic system is voting.

What concerns me even more is the attitude of some Christians toward political participation. Many have adopted the mindset that politics is "dirty" and therefore should be avoided. Others believe that because their citizenship is in heaven, earthly governance is of little importance. Some have simply become indifferent, convinced that their vote does not matter.

Such attitudes are difficult to reconcile with biblical principles.

The Apostle Paul instructed Christians in Romans 13 to be subject to governing authorities and to fulfill their obligations as citizens. Obedience to lawful authority is not optional for believers; it is part of Christian discipleship.

Likewise, Jesus declared, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21).

This statement teaches that believers have responsibilities both to God and to society. Faithfulness to God does not exempt us from our civic obligations. Rather, it should motivate us to fulfill them responsibly.

If we enjoy the benefits of citizenship, we must also embrace its duties.

Voting is not merely a political activity; it is a moral responsibility.

Every election is an opportunity to influence the direction of society. The leaders elected today will make decisions affecting education, security, healthcare, economic opportunities, religious freedom, and the future of generations yet unborn.

When good people refuse to participate, they create a vacuum that others will gladly fill.

Many complain about corruption, incompetence, and poor leadership, yet fail to register, obtain their voter cards, or show up on election day. Such complaints lose much of their force when the complainer has neglected one of the simplest means of contributing to change.

Democracy functions best when citizens engage. It weakens when citizens become apathetic.

There is a growing culture of political neutrality that often disguises itself as wisdom. Some people take pride in standing on the fence, refusing to support any cause, any reform, or any candidate.

Certainly, Christians should avoid blind political loyalty and partisan hatred. However, refusing to engage at all is not a virtue.

The Book of Revelation contains a stern warning against lukewarmness. While the passage speaks primarily about spiritual commitment, the principle remains relevant: indifference is rarely commendable.

A society facing serious challenges needs citizens who are informed, engaged, and willing to act. Silence and apathy are not solutions.

You may not like every candidate. You may not agree with every political party. But refusing to participate altogether guarantees that others will make decisions on your behalf.

Get Your PVC and Participate

The future of Nigeria will not be determined solely by politicians. It will also be determined by the choices of ordinary citizens.

Register to vote.

Get your Permanent Voter Card (PVC).

Study the candidates.

Evaluate their character, competence, and policies.

Vote according to your convictions.

Encourage others to do the same.

Pray for the nation, but also participate in shaping it.

Good governance requires more than prayers, complaints, and social media posts. It requires citizens who are willing to engage in the democratic process.

The Nigeria we desire will not emerge through wishful thinking. It will be built by citizens who understand that rights come with responsibilities and that change requires participation.

Enough of the fence-sitting.

Take responsibility.

Take part.

Vote!!!

The opposition is one of the key reasons we find ourselves in this mess as a country. They have no credible solutions to the myriad of problems we face. If they did, they would have already presented concrete, visible steps they intend to take to solve them. Instead, all we hear are vague statements.

The opposition has failed to hold the government accountable and force it to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities. They seem afraid, more focused on politicking and scheming to grab power—only to squander it. They are simply not serious.

Atiku would be an even worse president. He is self-centered, driven by a desperate ambition to become president, and unwilling to make any real sacrifices. What kind of leader would he be if he cannot even honor the north-south rotational principle that leaders like President Tinubu have disrespected? That kind of intolerance is a dangerous trait. He does not have my vote—not at all.

It’s time we start thinking first and foremost as citizens. We have very little time and few opportunities left to change the direction of this country for the better.

There is absolutely nothing to be worried about. My dad had this procedure done for me when I was very young, around 1986 or 1987, at a private hospital in Warri following a referral from Central Hospital, Warri. Today, my first child is 10 years old, and I have five children.

Simply visit a reputable hospital. The procedure is generally straightforward and quite affordable.

Some Nairalanders can be very unhelpful. Education goes beyond the four walls of a classroom. If you have little or no knowledge about a subject, it is better not to comment. Allow those who are informed to guide the OP in the right direction instead of filling the comment section with unnecessary panic, fear, and misinformation.

The rate of which some Nigerians hate that VDM is alarming. People will never be like you, so live and let others live.

I support the man’s decision. A father who made countless sacrifices for his family, fought thousands of battles on their behalf, and dedicated his life to making things easier for them should never be neglected simply because retirement has reduced the flow of money.

If I were in his position, I would invest the remaining money in a mutual fund and live a modest lifestyle from the interest and appreciation of the investment.

We should always remain grateful to those who made life easier for us.

I still feel guilty that my own father, who sacrificed so much for me, did not live long enough to enjoy the fruits of his labour, while some ungrateful wives and children toy with the very people who sacrificed everything for them.

That's an access Bank ussd code for airtime recharge. Please mode delete thread.

There are consequences to every action, so if you do the crime you should do the time. There is no need sugar coating any story, tell the truth the way it is and never be diplomatic about it, and let them be the judge of it, the truth is the only thing that can set us free.

Every misdemeanor has just consequences, is a lesson you are teaching them, so they learn to be morally and spiritually upright.

Kalashnikov49:
This ONE Sweet me DIE.

Propaganda merchants go collect woro woto.

You think you are catching cruise but in reality you are no different them, if you were in the position of the soldier it is certain you will do worse.

Freedom of association is a constitutional right, so the uproar over Peter Obi’s defection raises important questions. Many of us have changed jobs, careers, and even life paths multiple times without subjecting ourselves to harsh criticism. Why then should Peter Obi be treated differently?

Like any individual, he has the right to pursue his convictions and make decisions within the bounds of Nigerian law. Political movement or realignment is not a crime—it is part of a dynamic democratic process.

Rather than fixating on Obi’s choices, the APC would do better to focus on clearly communicating and defending its track record. If their performance over the years truly meets public expectations, it should be evident and compelling enough to stand on its own.

The intensity of the reaction suggests a deeper issue—perhaps not just about Obi’s defection, but about unmet expectations and the struggle to maintain public confidence.

It’s always interesting how quickly people forget recent political history. Celebrating someone’s elevation within that same political structure ignores a key contradiction: this is the very system that denied Akinwunmi Ambode a second term despite what many widely regarded as a solid performance in office.

Ambode served as governor of Lagos from 2015 to 2019 and, by most objective assessments, delivered significantly in infrastructure, finance management, and urban development. Yet, he was blocked from securing his party’s ticket for re-election after losing the APC primary to Babajide Sanwo-Olu.

That outcome wasn’t driven by public rejection at the ballot box—it happened internally, within the same political machinery now being praised. In fact, even insiders admitted that “arrangements” within the party made it impossible for Ambode’s supporters to prevail.

So the real question is: what exactly are we celebrating?

If a political structure can sideline a sitting governor who, by many accounts, was delivering tangible results, then loyalty to performance clearly isn’t its guiding principle. Instead, it suggests that internal alignments, power blocs, and interests carry more weight than governance outcomes.

That context matters. Because when the same system elevates new figures, it’s reasonable to question whether such promotions are based on merit, competence, or simply alignment with entrenched political interests.

In short, before applauding, we should reflect:
this is not just about one individual’s rise—it’s about a system whose past actions raise serious doubts about its commitment to rewarding performance and accountability.

GAC my foot.

I only hope that peace is restored soon. Nigerians are already suffering from the consequences of this war, even though we are not directly involved. Sadly, it reflects a failure of leadership — leaders who refuse to plan ahead for situations like this.

Neither the citizens nor the government will truly benefit from the current surge in petroleum prices because much of our crude oil has already been committed through forward sales and long-term contracts signed by the NNPC. In many ways, the policies of former President Muhammadu Buhari and the All Progressives Congress have left the country in a very difficult position.

Looking ahead, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, often described by his supporters as a “master strategist,” should deliberately work toward building a strategic crude reserve of at least 100 to 300 million barrels. Such a reserve would allow Nigeria to take advantage of price upswings in the global oil market instead of always being at the mercy of circumstances.

Why do we always resort to sycophancy at every opportunity? It is unhealthy for our democracy. When leaders are constantly praised without accountability, we gradually create tyrants and isolate them from the real feelings of the citizens.

To Governor Hope Uzodimma: what exactly has President Bola Ahmed Tinubu done to make petrol prices stable in this current situation? From the perspective of ordinary citizens, there are no visible or decisive steps from either the federal or state governments. The leadership appears bereft of practical solutions to address the rising cost of petrol.

One obvious step would be for the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited to sell crude directly to the Dangote Refinery at a transparent fixed market price, eliminating the layers of middlemen that complicate the process and inflate costs.

Also, the president must empower the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission, and the Nigeria Police Force to genuinely fight corruption. Nigeria cannot move forward if these institutions are perceived as lukewarm or focused on pursuing political dissidents instead of tackling real corruption.

The government must understand that Nigerians actually want it to succeed—because if it succeeds, the lives of the people will be better for it.

citizenY:
Show me the figures

The 2015 Nigerian presidential election results by zone in percentages are as follows:

- *Muhammadu Buhari (APC)*: 53.96%
- *Goodluck Jonathan (PDP)*: 44.96%

Breaking it down by region:
- *North-Central*: Buhari won with 53.59% of the votes
- *North-East*: Buhari dominated with 70.68%
- *North-West*: Buhari swept with 71.18%
- *South-East*: Jonathan won with 76.26%
- *South-South*: Jonathan won with 66.56%
- *South-West*: Buhari won with 49.16%

Using the figures you have referenced I asked again

Did you promote this same narrative in 2015, when the North-West and North-East overwhelmingly voted for Muhammadu Buhari, or when the South-East and South-South massively supported Goodluck Ebele Jonathan?

Why was it not labeled tribalism then? Why has it suddenly become a problem in 2023? Is it simply because Peter Obi was on the ballot?

Moderator, what are you waiting for before pushing this to the front page? Or are you comfortable allowing such a dangerous narrative to continue spreading on this platform?

helinues:
But you saw what I was responding to? Was my response to that person incoherent to you?

Eventually, you are no longer interested in discussing what you created this thread for.

Noted though. I don't need to waste my time engaging with you as you are short of substance

Ire oo

dgr8truth:
Was the South-East and South-West ethnically bigoted in 1993 when they largely supported Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola against Bashir Tofa during the 1993 Nigerian presidential election?

It seems we often suffer from very short political memory in this country—especially when the facts do not support the narrative we want to push.

Regional voting patterns have existed in Nigerian politics for decades. Selectively condemning one region today while ignoring historical precedents only weakens the credibility of the argument.

What is the narrative now, or you are just focused on President Tinubu and Peter Obi.

Kdon2:
The pattern has remained the same ever since in south east for ages the only difference is the ibo attempt to gaslight everybody to vote their candidate.

Was the South-East and South-West ethnically bigoted in 1993 when they largely supported Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola against Bashir Tofa during the 1993 Nigerian presidential election?

It seems we often suffer from very short political memory in this country—especially when the facts do not support the narrative we want to push.

Regional voting patterns have existed in Nigerian politics for decades. Selectively condemning one region today while ignoring historical precedents only weakens the credibility of the argument.

helinues:
But you saw what I was responding to? Was my response to that person incoherent to you?

Eventually, you are no longer interested in discussing what you created this thread for.

Noted though. I don't need to waste my time engaging with you as you are short of substance

Ire oo

And he bolted!!!

helinues:
Stop being quarter clever guy. I responded to something by someone.

You saw my response to you but probably still cracking your head as you don't know what to respond. They are actually 2 but you ignored

Stop the quarter cleverness

You are quite funny!

dgr8truth:
[quote author=helinues post=138680014]The worst of Tinubu is 1000% better than Peter Obi

Let me dare you, post just one video where Peter Obi was asked about anything related to governance and he answered coherently

I am not asking for 2 videos, just 1 is okay

Boss, you are funny. How exactly does your response relate to the theme of the article?

Did the article compare the performance of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his Excellency Peter Obi?

You can judge for yourself who is actually being “clever” only in his imagination.

helinues:
The worst of Tinubu is 1000% better than Peter Obi

Let me dare you, post just one video where Peter Obi was asked about anything related to governance and he answered coherently

I am not asking for 2 videos, just 1 is okay

Why have you reduced the theme of the write up to Tinubu and Obi. That is not the issue I address.

I have not in away put forward a preferred presidential candidate in 2027, but you are psychologically bullying me to pick your preferred candidate for 2027.

helinues:
Please don't sound lame. So because the NW people gave Buhari bigot votes in whatever election, is that why South East is emulating same. I thought you guys claimed you are different

Again, try and be thinking your thoughts through

In my conversation with you I have been very respectful of you I expect you extend that same courtesy.

FYI I am not from the south east if you care to know.

helinues:
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF VOTES IN THE 2023 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

North Central:
🔵Tinubu — 40.03%
🟣Obi — 32.18%
🔴Atiku — 26.42%
🟠Kwankwaso — 1.37%

North East:
🔴Atiku — 51.71%
🔵Tinubu — 35.19%
🟣Obi — 9.35%
🟠Kwankwaso — 3.75%

North West:
🔵Tinubu — 40.08%
🔴Atiku — 35.35%
🟠Kwankwaso — 19.25%
🟣Obi — 5.31%

South East:
🟣Obi — 89.42%
🔵Tinubu — 5.83%
🔴Atiku — 4.17%
🟠Kwankwaso — 0.38%

South South:
🟣Obi — 44.09%
🔵Tinubu — 29.13%
🔴Atiku — 26.15%
🟠Kwankwaso — 0.63%

South West:
🔵Tinubu — 55.77%
🔴Atiku — 23.04%
🟣Obi — 20.78%
🟠Kwankwaso — 0.41%

🔵APC 🟣LP 🔴PDP 🟠NNPP

89% is more than bigotry, its tribalistic

You guys should endeavor to the thinking your thoughts through before rushing to post on social media.

The analysis above erased whatever epistle you might have written as it's all false

Using your logic can you equally say the North is ethnic

2015 Presidential Election Results
North-West 83% 16%
North-East 78% 22%
North-Central 59% 40%
South-West 56% 42%
South-South 8% 91%
South-East 7% 91%

helinues:
What percentage of votes did Peter Obi receive in South East compared to What Tinubu received in South West or what Atiku received in North East

Those emotional blackmailing stopped working long time.

You guys keep on repeating obsolete method that never worked for you in the past with the hope of bring new results.

That's stagnant

Did you promote this same narrative in 2015, when the North-West and North-East overwhelmingly voted for Muhammadu Buhari, or when the South-East and South-South massively supported Goodluck Ebele Jonathan?

Why was it not labeled tribalism then? Why has it suddenly become a problem in 2023? Is it simply because Peter Obi was on the ballot?

Voting patterns have always reflected regional preferences in Nigerian elections. Singling out one region in 2023 while ignoring similar patterns in previous elections is inconsistent and intellectually dishonest.

This morning, while going through a thread titled “Regional Distribution of Votes in the 2023 Presidential Election” by blamingthedevil, I noticed a recurring narrative portraying the South East as tribalistic because of its overwhelming support for Peter Obi. That repeated characterization prompted a deep concern and compelled me to bring to our collective intellectual consciousness the dangerous implications of such a narrative.

In recent political conversations across Nigeria, this troubling claim has continued to gain traction. Some commentators—particularly from the South West—have attempted to label the South East as “tribalistic” simply because the region voted overwhelmingly for Peter Obi during the 2023 presidential election.

This argument is not only unfair but dangerously hypocritical. A careful look at Nigeria’s own electoral history shows that strong regional voting patterns are not unique to the South East. In fact, they have been a consistent feature of Nigerian elections across all regions.

The 2015 Nigerian presidential election between Muhammadu Buhari of the APC and Goodluck Jonathan of the PDP revealed clear regional voting patterns across the country.

2015 Presidential Election by Geopolitical Zone

Geopolitical Zone APC (Buhari) PDP (Jonathan)

North-West 83% 16%
North-East 78% 22%
North-Central 59% 40%
South-West 56% 42%
South-South 8% 91%
South-East 7% 91%


The data tells a clear story: every region of Nigeria voted overwhelmingly for one candidate or another. The North-West and North-East gave massive support to Buhari, while the South-South and South-East overwhelmingly supported Jonathan.

Yet at that time, the national conversation did not revolve around accusing entire regions of tribal bigotry.

Why then is the South East suddenly being singled out today?

If voting overwhelmingly for a candidate from one's region is evidence of tribalism, then by the same logic many regions across Nigeria would be guilty of the same charge.

The truth is that voting behavior in Nigeria—like in many democracies around the world—is influenced by history, trust, perceived competence, and political alignment. Regional identity can play a role, but it is far from the only factor.

To isolate one region and label millions of citizens as tribal bigots because of their electoral choice is not analysis; it is prejudice.

Democracy Allows Citizens to Choose Freely

In a democracy, citizens have the right to support any candidate they believe best represents their interests and aspirations. That is the essence of democratic freedom.

When people in the South East rallied behind Peter Obi, many believed he represented a different vision for governance, economic management, and national leadership. Their choice may be debated politically, but it should never be weaponized as evidence of ethnic intolerance.

Nigeria must remember the painful lessons of the Nigerian Civil War. That conflict was fueled by mistrust, propaganda, and ethnic suspicion.

The international community has also seen how dangerous such narratives can become. The Rwandan Genocide showed the catastrophic consequences of sustained ethnic demonization.

When public discourse begins to portray entire populations as tribalistic or disloyal, it plants seeds of division that can grow into something far more dangerous.

Political leaders must recognize the danger of these narratives and act responsibly. During his presidency, Goodluck Jonathan demonstrated a level of political tolerance that helped stabilize the nation during highly contested elections.

Today, the government of Bola Ahmed Tinubu carries a similar responsibility. Protecting national unity requires confronting rhetoric that stigmatizes entire regions or ethnic groups.

Narratives that portray one region as inherently tribalistic are not just political opinions—they can become threats to national cohesion.

Nigeria’s democracy will only mature when citizens learn to debate politics without demonizing entire communities. Strong regional voting patterns are not new; they are part of Nigeria’s political reality.

What is new—and dangerous—is the attempt to stigmatize one region for doing what every other region has done at different times in the country’s democratic journey.

The real threat to Nigeria is not how people vote.

The real threat is the deliberate attempt to turn electoral choices into ethnic accusations that divide the nation and bully citizens into electoral silence.

Nigeria must reject such narratives if it hopes to build a stable, united, and mature democracy.