₦airaland Forum

In 2026, someone is still attempting thus tired pedestrian politics?.

Obviously, Mrs. Tinubu believe the people they deliberately impoverished will continue to eat the crumbs from her family table.

Did she not tell Igbo they are not to be trusted, what changed?.

This criminal family will experience the wrath and fury of hungry and deprived Nigerians they stole and continue to steal from in a matter of weeks.

brain54:
:::




How is he gonna do it?


Is it by magic?


The era of making vague promises to win an election is over.


Tell us how you will do before we take you seriously.


:::

You must first admit that Tinubu has failed. As a matter of fact, you just did.

Looks like a structured exit scam to me, just in case the election he plan to rig goes south.

We told you Ahmed Tinubu is a criminal. A raw and unadulterated con-artist.

If you're still in need to evidence, how about a bed space in a psychiatric institution where his paid defenders obviously belong.

Looks like a structured exit scam to me, just in case the election he plan to rig goes south.

We told you Ahmed Tinubu is a criminal. A raw and unadulterated con-artist.

If you're still in need of evidence, how about a bed space in a psychiatric institution where his paid defenders obviously belong.

aswani:
Ottersberger, this post is the absolute truth about those 399 pages of FBI files from a phantom court case (post glomar response) and Ikemefuna's attempt to justify the monies he received from Atiku.

A shame his nuisance factor is here to stay until the elections but we shall cope.

Good day,

I have no objection to you or your associates earning a living, if that is indeed the motivation behind your engagement. However, I would appreciate it if you refrained from attempting to enlist me in an agenda with which I have no interest in being associated.

Why is it so difficult to allow due process to run its course?. Neither you nor I has the authority to dictate the pace, direction, or outcome of a legal proceeding, irrespective of whether we possess the requisite locus standi. The proper course is to allow the law to take its course, rather than seek to prejudge or manipulate the process through public commentary.

Your intervention, regrettably, appears less concerned with illuminating the issues than with obscuring them, a strategy that substitutes obfuscation for substantive engagement.

It is campaign season, my good friend. The Nigerian electorate deserves an account of President Tinubu’s stewardship: his record in office, the consequences of his policies, and the extent to which his administration has fulfilled its obligations to the Nigerian people. What the country does not need is a recycling of familiar narratives, disinformation, and political subterfuge in place of substantive answers.

For the avoidance of doubt, I hold deeply unfavourable views of Tinubu’s record and believe that serious questions concerning his conduct warrant scrutiny. These are matters that should be addressed through evidence, due process, and reasoned public discourse, not obscured by partisan advocacy. I understand, of course, that personal interests and political loyalties may influence where one chooses to stand.

Be assured that I will continue to exercise my democratic right to oppose Tinubu’s re-election and to challenge policies and practices that, in my assessment, threaten to erode the modest gains Nigerians across ethnic, religious, and social divides are working tirelessly to secure for their families.

Public office is a responsibility, not a personal entitlement; and political loyalty, however fervent, cannot substitute for accountability.

BATified2023:
u will cry hot tears after d election

Kwankwanso just dey use una dey hold body so as to b in d news till 2031 when he will move to apc n contest for presidency

Kwankwanso even made it clear if he team up with obi they will lose

Oya now

Good, but why sleep come finish for una eyes since the OK Ticket materialized.

We're winning this thing again. Only this time, una nor fit thief am.

waxyung:
What gives you assurance these supporters are organic?

We nor dey give shishi still.

Antoeni:
33 NIGERIAN EX-GOVERNORS & AMOUNT ALLEGEDLY EMBEZZLED

Ex Governor — Amount allegedly Embezzled
1 🟤 Peter Odili — ₦100bn
2 🟠 Yahaya Bello — ₦80.2bn
3 🔴 Saminu Turaki — ₦36bn
4 ⚫ Murtala Nyako — ₦29bn
5 ⚫ Danjuma Goje — ₦25bn
6 🟢 Sullivan Chime — ₦23bn
7 🟤 Timipre Sylva — ₦19.2bn
8 🟠 Abdullahi Adamu — ₦15bn
9 🟣 Adebayo Alao-Akala — ₦11.5bn
10 🔴 Ibrahim Shema — ₦11bn
11 🟠 Abdulfatah Ahmed — ₦10bn
12 🟠 Abubakar Audu — ₦10bn
13 ⚫ Aliyu Akwe-Doma — ₦8bn
14 🟢 Orji Uzor Kalu — ₦7.1bn
15 🟣 Ayo Fayose — ₦6.9bn
16 🟠 Jonah Jang — ₦6.3bn
17 🟢 Chimaroke Nnamani — ₦5.3bn
18 🔴 Attahiru Bafarawa — ₦4.6bn
19 🟣 Rashidi Ladoja — ₦4.6bn
20 🟢 Willie Obiano — ₦4bn
21 🟠 Gabriel Suswam — ₦3.1bn
22 🟢 Rochas Okorocha — ₦3bn
23 🟤 Lucky Igbinedion — ₦2.9bn
24 ⚫ Jolly Nyame — ₦1.64bn
25 🔴 Sule Lamido — ₦1.35bn
26 🟠 Joshua Dariye — ₦1.1bn
27 🔴 Mukhtar Ramalan Yero — ₦750m
28 🔴 Usman Dakingari — ₦450m
29 🟣 Gbenga Daniel — ₦211m
30 ⚫ James Ngilari — ₦167m
31 🟢 Ikedi Ohakim — $2m
32 🟤 Diepreye Alamieyeseigha — >$30m
33 🟤 James Ibori — £50m

🟠 NC 🔴 NW ⚫ NE 🟤 SS 🟢 SE 🟣 SW

#StatiSense
(Foundation for Investigative Journalism)

Peter Obi?

Elusive001:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CCfv3xrH8/

Please, can someone verify this?

WATCH : Umahi Creating a U-turn At 1st Niger Bridge After Public Outcry

Hmmm 🤔 pic.twitter.com/wfavOX8BjA

— Dj SpoiltKid (@spoiltkid) October 6, 2026

This clown must be promptly arrested and prosecuted for all his crimes by a subsequent government in 2027.

aswani:
You do need to accept that I don't support President Tinubu. I would bat for Peter Obí or Atiku if someone claimed anything against them and couldn't present any proof.

Per the Ikemefuna thing, what exactly has come out of it? Where are the 399 pages, what did Judge Howell say on the supposed private viewing.

Surely you must accept that Ikemefuna provided no proof of anything, court dates, court documents that were court sealed, singed and dated. As you yanks say, he might have kept his Atiku money, but he has turned out to be a busted flush.

To the Lord be the glory that we are here on the third of October, suddenly everything has fizzled out. All the deadlines have come and gone yet nothing has been heard.

It is indeed a unique court case. I said at the beginning, when Kio Amachree involved himself, that we won't see anything, no press conference, no judgement, no nothing and we haven't.

That been said, if I can find time to attend to your original post on this thread, I will. In truth, there was so much falsehood in there, it breached my treshold of posts I don't bother with as there is too much to (easily) pick apart.

Regardless, I wish you a nice Saturday and I hope you have now wrapped up your thesis.

So, I stopped engaging with you on this matter when it became clear that you are on a Tinubu gig. Your repeated attempts to disguise and obfuscate that fact have only made it more obvious.

I have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who dishonestly defends Tinubu rather than engage the facts. I wasted my time.

aswani:
As a sign of reciprocal respect for you, despite disagreeing with every single thing you posted abovr, I will leave this matter be.

I wish you a blessed weekend.

I think the time for pontification is past, we are here to exchange and it's political open season. We can disagree, and we can challenge one another’s positions, without descending into disrespect or pretending that disagreement itself is an argument.

I am perfectly willing to state my facts, convictions, and conclusions,and to distinguish between them where necessary. Equally, I am prepared to have them challenged.

So, if you disagree with what I have said, controvert it. Identify the specific claim/s you dispute, present the evidence that contradicts it, and make the case. I am open to that conversation.

What I am not particularly interested in is another round of assertions, moral posturing, Ikemefuna innuendos, or recycled talking points standing in for facs. If we are going to engage, let us engage the substance of what was actually said.

In fact, can you, or anyone of the hundreds of Tinubu's surrogates here, list 3 Tinubu's landmark projects commissioned by him as governor of Lagos state?. I want to be educatedon how he built Lagos. Suffice it to say we now see how he is building Nigeria.

aswani:
Per the bolded, any proof at all of Peter Obi winning in 2023?

My dear friend,

I trust this meets you in good health and spirit. You may not know this, but there are certain mundane, endlessly recycled arguments that I deliberately choose not to engage in. However, since you have raised the issue, let us deal with it plainly.

We both know that Tinubu, Mahmood, and the powerful interests within Nigeria’s electoral power establishment have the means to produce whatever evidence you are asking for, if they genuinely choose to do so. The question, therefore, is not simply whether evidence exists, but who controls the institutions, the records, and the process through which that evidence is produced and authenticated and diseminated.

El-Rufai told you as much. So where is he now?.

As for the results themselves, the IReV records are sufficiently clear that anyone approaching the issue without a predetermined conclusion can see the results recorded for Rivers and Benue States. One does not need to turn this into another endless argument about competing narratives when the relevant electoral records are there to be examined even with the so-called criminally induced glitch.

And now we are being told that Abuja is also a state, apparently for electoral purposes. Fine. Let us even set that argument aside for a moment.

The more important question is what we are doing with the country itself. Instead of endlessly recycling arguments over individual figures, documents, and electoral technicalities, perhaps we should interrogate the much larger national consequences of Tinubu’s administration and the disastrous policies and debilitating corruption it has pursued. That is where the substantive argument really lies.

AMINDA:
Umahi, Soludo and all the other Southeastern politicians are only against Peter Obi because they want to be considered for VP in 2031. The problem is that APC will not consider someone from the Southeast as VP in 2031 if the party fails to get substantial votes from the region. They are however right in saying that the Southeast as a region will have to align with one other major region to get into power. The coalition presented the shortest and easiest possible path to bring that into fruition while having a foot in the corridor of power as VP but Obi chose to walk away to run solo. 4 years or even 8 years is a very short time in politics. When you play politics at the national level in a highly diverse country like Nigeria, you have to also put your regional interests into consideration. Otherwise, just go be a businessman or try other endeavours.

Oga, this is not about Igbo. These political gladiators are speaking for themselves.

Mr. Peter Obi won more votes in 2023 than either Tinubu or Atiku. I understand that the real issue here is Mr. Obi potentially deputizing a man he defeated in the last election, someone who, at this point, does not appear to have a viable path to winning without the active support of Nigeria’s most popular presidential candidate at the moment.

Let’s allow the voters to decide at the polls in a free, fair, and credible election. We can come back afterward and review the results.

fergie001:
I have a Masters in Law from England and my specialty is International Banking


Interview with Seun & Reno Omokri, Nigeria's Ambassador-Designate to Mexico

Ok, we agree. Nigerians only ask Tinubu to consent to his FBI, DEA and CIA records to be made public. A clear conscience usually fears no accusation, abi?.

If Scotland and Northern Ireland were both to vote for independence, it would likely represent the beginning of the end of the United Kingdom as we know it, and potentially the end of Britain as a single political project.

Northern Ireland would almost certainly face renewed pressure for a referendum on Irish reunification. If reunification were approved, Northern Ireland would become part of a united Ireland and, through the Republic of Ireland, part of the European Union. The political consequences for what remained of the UK would be enormous.

Scotland, meanwhile, would become an independent European country and would likely seek EU membership. While membership would require negotiations rather than happening automatically, Scotland's strong European orientation and existing institutional ties with the EU would make accession a major long-term objective.

That would leave Wales and England as the remaining components of the United Kingdom. Wales might initially remain in union with England, largely because independence would present difficult economic and political questions. But the departure of both Scotland and Northern Ireland would fundamentally alter the balance of the state and could eventually force Wales to reconsider its own constitutional future.

England would effectively become the core successor state to the United Kingdom. At that point, whether it continued to use the name "United Kingdom" would be largely symbolic: the centuries-old political union would have been transformed beyond recognition.

Over time, the British Isles could therefore move toward a new political reality. Scotland and a reunified Ireland would be within the EU, while Wales and England would have to decide whether to remain outside or eventually seek much closer integration with Europe.

The most plausible outcome would not be an overnight collapse, but a chain reaction: Scottish independence and Irish reunification could fundamentally weaken the remaining union, accelerate Welsh constitutional debate, and eventually force England to reconsider its own relationship with Europe.

In that sense, the independence of Scotland and Northern Ireland would not simply mean the breakup of the United Kingdom. It could mark the end of the political order that has defined Britain for centuries.

kunle4toyeyaho:
I hope you have evidence to support your irresponsible statement incase you're invited? Some of you are so uncouth, imagine calling a man that is old enough to be your father all sorts of names even when he hasn't been found guilty of one shows you were not properly brought up.. In as much as I agree you have a right to criticise his style of leadership,I advise you to choose your word carefully .
Note: You are free to wail as much as possible
....

Go and take a seat. A man who fraudulently occupies our national space and wastes our time and resources for his own benefit while ruthlessly stealing from us, leaving Nigerians saddled with economic and security difficulties, can and will be called whatever anyone wishes.

Tinubu is a monumental disgrace of a calamity the likes of which have never been seen in Nigeria before, and you may take this statement to anyone you wish. In fact, I will publish my address if it helps you dweebs.

Don't come here threatening anyone as if Nigerians haven't suffered enough or as if you aren't feeling the heat.

Helinuse:
BRICS



Acronyms na water.

First, the BRICS was made, not for economic importance but geopolitical influence, particularly military protection. Then Israel pounded the biggest mouth among them (Iran), and the others, that is, the perceived economic superpower (China), the perceived military superpower (Russia), and the known super big-mouth (South Africa), folded their tails between their legs, and kept mute.




Then Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan decided to coin another acronym for military alliance. Israel pounded Turkey in Syria, wiping out all its military formations. Erdogan knew his capacity and denied it, claiming that the casualties were Syrian forces. Dude knows his limit. And guess what? Pakistan and Saudi Arabia couldn't lift a finger.

Pakistan and Turkey know very much that Israel is baiting them into making a mistake of provoking, attacking, or retaliating, so that it will turn them into another Gaza or Iran.

Just shut it, address the topic and stop talking nonsense. Why is your president always absent from scheduled international and local events? We all witnessed the humiliation he inflicted on Nigerians in Turkey, not to mention his carefully choreographed display of contrition with the Wales family in London.

Speaking of which, when will he be discharged from hospital?. I tell you truly, a day will come when you will have no grounds on which to defend or propagate your nonsense. That day is not far away.

In the meantime, Peter Gregory Obi attended meetings in the south-east, Benue, Plateau, Germany and England in the space of 24 hours. He's back in Nigeria as we speak. That is what I call capacity, not to mention competence, integrity and compassion.

Una mind still dey rigging ba?, na lie. See, all of us go learn this agbero Nigeria politics together this period.


NB. If you face me eh, you know say my mouth on good. I nor just well for head. With your thin skin, you go soon run go cry for your favorite mod. Abi na you be the mod sef.

Amberly01:
Fani-Kayode Tackles Von Batten over Tinubu Allegations, Questions Credentials, Motives



Source

Femi is ranting as usual. I really wonder what substance he is currently being influenced by. Anyways, what do I know. My good friend and brother, high chief aswani, says to move along, nothing to see here beyond a glomar response. Yet Tinubu disappeared to Europe to beg and bribe, while all his surrogates have been activated.

Nigeria, sorry!.

Ordinarily, Enugu should have built a new stadium on the outskirts of the city rather than continuing to concentrate a major sports facility in what has effectively become downtown Enugu.

The city has outgrown the current location of the sports complex. What may have been an appropriate site decades ago is no longer suitable for a modern stadium serving a rapidly expanding urban population. The present location offers little or no adequate space for vehicle parking, pedestrian circulation or crowd management. More seriously, in the event of a stampede or other major emergency, the lack of sufficient open space and escape routes could turn a potentially manageable situation into a serious public-safety disaster, putting not only spectators at risk but also the residential and commercial buildings immediately surrounding the facility.

The problem becomes particularly obvious on match days. The large volume of vehicles and pedestrians leaving the stadium and emptying onto Ogui Road creates severe traffic congestion and places enormous pressure on an already constrained urban corridor. This kind of gridlock should not be an inevitable feature of match days in a properly planned and forward-looking city like Enugu.

A modern stadium should be more than a football pitch surrounded by stands. Its location must take into account traffic management, parking capacity, pedestrian movement, emergency access, crowd safety, environmental impact and the future expansion of the city.

Ideally, the state government should have relocated the facility to an area with sufficient land to accommodate these requirements. Centenary City, Emene, or the New Enugu axis would have been far more logical choices. Such locations would provide room for adequate parking, wider access roads, proper pedestrian infrastructure, emergency evacuation routes and future expansion, while significantly reducing the environmental and traffic pressures imposed on the existing Enugu urban core.

Enugu is a city with a proud history of urban planning. Its sporting infrastructure should reflect the city it is becoming, not the city it was several decades ago.

The issue is not simply where to put a stadium. It is whether we are planning Enugu for today, or building for the city we know it will become tomorrow.

What a masterstroke!. Decapitating the Octo and Nano Generians in one fell swoop.

I told one gentleman here that we will learn 2027 politics together. While others are busy crying over another man's gravitas, allow me to be the first to call Oyo and Bauchi states for Peter Obi in 2027.

Mr. Obi has the gravitas, and this is clear for all to see. If you are Peter Obi and the NDC, you should be interested in Lagos, Oyo, and whatever comes out of Osun, and the southwest is cooked and served, regardless of what the bunker dweller wants you to believe.

I can see politics maturing before our eyes, and it is beautiful to behold.

bennybuhari:
the northerners won't understand all these grammar but i agree with your points

That had to be said, and then some. I'm being deliberately verbose.

Let us be clear: Atiku Abubakar has no verifiable pathway to winning this election without Peter Obi. Peter Obi, on the other hand, has a political constituency that exists independently of Atiku. That is the uncomfortable truth Atiku's supporters must confront.

This is not an insult to Atiku, nor is it an attempt to diminish his political experience. It is simply an assessment of the electoral arithmetic as it stands. If this becomes a contest in which every candidate must demonstrate a credible route to 25 percent in enough states and ultimately secure the constitutional threshold required to win, the numbers matter more than political nostalgia, party structures or the size of a coalition photograph.

Atiku's greatest problem is that he has yet to demonstrate what he would offer Nigeria that is fundamentally different from what Nigerians experienced under Muhammadu Buhari and are experiencing under Bola Ahmed Tinubu. After decades at the centre of Nigeria's political establishment, the question is no longer simply whether Atiku can defeat Tinubu. The more important question is: what compelling reason does he give Nigerians to believe that his presidency would take the country in a fundamentally different direction?.

This is not a popularity contest. But if it becomes one, Atiku appears to hold the shorter end of the stick compared to Peter Obi.

Our concern, however, should transcend the narrow question of who can win. The greater question is who is best qualified to unite a deeply divided country and lift Nigeria from the abyss into which years of poor governance, insecurity, economic mismanagement and institutional decay have pushed her?.

That is where the argument becomes even more difficult for Atiku.

Consider the South.

Atiku, as things currently stand, faces an enormous challenge in the region. It is difficult to identify a credible pathway for him to carry any Southern state outright, and the prospect of securing 25 percent in several Southeast and South-South states is even more problematic. The political reality has changed dramatically since 2019 and 2023, and the emergence of Peter Obi has fundamentally altered the electoral landscape.

The Southwest presents another complicated battlefield. With Seyi Makinde potentially emerging as a presidential contender, the political equation becomes even more fragmented. Osun may prove to be an outlier, and in politics, anything can happen. But relying on exceptions is not the same thing as having a credible national pathway to victory.

Then there is the Middle Belt.

Atiku's difficulties there cannot simply be dismissed as ordinary partisan opposition. There is deep-seated distrust in parts of the region arising from perceptions of ethnic and religious politics, particularly surrounding Fulani political dominance and the legacy of the conflicts that have devastated communities across the Middle Belt.

The 2023 election results should have been a warning. Despite the presence of PDP governors and the party's considerable political machinery in parts of the region, Atiku struggled to translate that infrastructure into overwhelming electoral support. If the political conditions that produced those results remain substantially unchanged, why should anyone assume that the numbers will suddenly reverse themselves?.

And this brings us to the North.

Even if Atiku secures a majority of the votes in the Northeast and Northwest, which itself is far from guaranteed, he still faces the fundamental problem of assembling the rest of the country required to win. The presidency of Nigeria cannot be won by simply dominating one section of the country while suffering major deficits everywhere else.

Atiku knows this.

Which raises the uncomfortable question that serious political observers should be willing to ask.

If Atiku's electoral pathway is so dependent on Peter Obi, yet he remains determined to lead the coalition rather than support the candidate with the broader national appeal, what exactly is the objective?.

Is this genuinely about defeating the ruling party and rescuing Nigeria?.

Or is something else at play?.

If the electoral arithmetic makes it increasingly difficult to see how Atiku can win, while his candidacy could potentially divide the opposition vote and make it easier for the incumbent to retain power, Nigerians are entitled to ask whether Atiku is merely playing spoiler.

And if he is playing spoiler, then another, even more disturbing question inevitably follows:

Is Atiku Abubakar, consciously or otherwise, working to the advantage of his longtime friend and political ally, Bola Ahmed Tinubu?.

That question should not be dismissed as conspiracy theory merely because it is uncomfortable. It is a legitimate political question arising from the consequences of the choices being made.

Politics is ultimately about outcomes, not declarations of intent.

A candidate who cannot demonstrate a credible pathway to victory, but whose candidacy can demonstrably fragment the opposition vote, should expect Nigerians to scrutinize his motives, his strategy and the consequences of his continued candidacy.

The central issue, however, remains bigger than Atiku.

Nigeria is in crisis. Nigerians are poorer, more insecure and more distrustful of government than they should be in a country with our enormous human and natural resources. The next election therefore cannot simply be another contest among familiar political elites over who occupies Aso Rock.

It must be a referendum on what kind of Nigeria we want to build.

The question is not who has the longest political résumé.

It is not who has the largest collection of political allies.

It is not who can assemble the most impressive coalition of former officeholders.

The question is much simpler:

Who can unite Nigeria?. Who can restore confidence?. Who has the competence to rebuild the economy, the character to resist the corruption of power, the credibility to command national trust, and the capacity to pull Nigeria back from the abyss?.

That is the question Nigerians should be asking.

And that is why Peter Obi's position in this political equation cannot be reduced to that of somebody's running mate.

He has his own political constituency. He has demonstrated that he can mobilize voters independently. And, more importantly, he represents an alternative political proposition that millions of Nigerians believe is worth considering.

Atiku needs Peter Obi.

The more difficult question for Atiku's supporters is whether Peter Obi needs Atiku.

The electoral arithmetic, at least as it currently stands, suggests that he does not.

I am, Ottersberger

Peter Obi Said No — And That May Be the Point

In a recent interview, former Secretary to the Federal Government (SGF), Engr. Babachir Lawal, made a revealing disclosure about the political calculations behind the emerging coalition. According to Lawal, Atiku Abubakar sent him on a mission to persuade Peter Obi to become his running mate once again.

Lawal recounted:

"After sometime of working with him(Atiku), he sent me on a mission. They say you have influence against Peter Obi, I want Peter Obi to come back and be my vice presidential candidate. We will do presidency four years, withing those our years, I will amend the constitution to make presidency six year term. Single term of six years and then we put rotation into the constitution so there's no more dispute and we start from the southeast.

I went and met Peter. It was raining that day. Peter didn't even want me to come because it was raining that day. I woke my driver and my security up and we drove in the rain. And then I told Peter, I'm on a mission of this and this and that, and then he said he didn't like the idea very much"

That account deserves serious attention.

If Lawal's account is accurate, it tells Nigerians something important about the political architecture of the coalition: Atiku Abubakar had already positioned himself as the presidential candidate, while Peter Obi was being approached for the role of deputy.

And therein lies the fundamental issue.

Peter Obi is no longer simply a potential running mate whose political value can be measured by the number of votes he might deliver to another candidate. He has become a political phenomenon in his own right, with a substantial constituency of Nigerians who believe he represents a departure from the political establishment.

Yet the strategy appears to have been to bring him back into the same arrangement that Nigerians had already rejected: Peter Obi as Atiku's running mate.

The proposed inducement was equally extraordinary. According to Lawal's account, Atiku's proposal involved a four-year presidency followed by a constitutional amendment providing for a single six-year presidential term, after which power would rotate, beginning with the Southeast.

Whatever one's political persuasion, Nigerians should pause and examine what this means.

A constitutional arrangement of such magnitude should never be reduced to a private political bargain or presented as an incentive for securing an individual's support. The Constitution belongs to the Nigerian people, not to political actors negotiating electoral advantage.

This is why Peter Obi's reported response is significant.

He said no.

He rejected the offer to once again serve as Atiku Abubakar's deputy, despite the promise that, under the proposed arrangement, he would eventually ascend to the presidency after four years.

That decision should not be dismissed as political naivety. It can equally be interpreted as a refusal to subordinate a broader political vision to the ambitions of an established political order.

Atiku and his allies, including David Mark, Aregbesola and others, may have believed that bringing Peter Obi into the coalition would strengthen their political equation. They may have calculated that the man who has captured the imagination of millions of Nigerians could be persuaded to join their arrangement.

But Peter Obi was not persuaded.

And perhaps that is the point.

The question Nigerians must now ask is not simply who can assemble the biggest coalition of political heavyweights. The more important question is: what exactly is the coalition offering Nigerians?.

Is it a genuine political realignment, or is it another arrangement in which familiar political actors reorganize themselves, negotiate positions and ask Nigerians to once again choose between variations of the same political establishment?.

Nigeria does not merely need another election. Nigeria needs a fundamentally different political direction.

As the country teeters on the brink, we must reorganize our priorities. We must look beyond political titles, party structures, alliances and carefully negotiated arrangements and ask the question that matters most:

In whose hands is the leadership of Nigeria safe?.

Who has the compassion to understand the hardship of ordinary Nigerians?.

Who has the competence to manage a complex economy and a country facing enormous security and institutional challenges?.

Who has the credibility to inspire public confidence?.

Who has the capacity to deliver?.

Who has the character to place the national interest above personal ambition?.

And, ultimately, who has the commitment to build a Nigeria that works for Nigerians rather than another political arrangement that works primarily for politicians?.

For me, the answer remains unequivocal: Peter Gregory Obi.

I am, Ottersberger

aswani:
Ottersberger, can you see why I am not sure I agree with Bayo Onanuga? Hundeyin claimed they were released ages ago, obviously false going by the link, now Bayo is putting his own on top of what Hundeyin said.

Bayo is doing damage control for Tinubu; that's what he's paid to do, and his account of events is fairly accurate. I'm sure you'll reach the same conclusion as well if it pleases you.

They are now preparing their urchins for the splashdown. It will come as it must. Sanwo is leading the way.

The following is a public statement issued by the president's press secretary, Mr. Bayo Ononuga, this evening, which I will reproduce verbatim:

Some people with whom I have discussed this matter, including my dear, respected friend Aswani, have consistently sought to restrict the foregoing to a long in the room Glomar response. But if that were the case, what are we to make of the admissions of the principal character's representative below?.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bayo Onanuga, OON, CON
@aonanuga1956
·
3h
STATEHOUSE STATEMENT

CLARIFICATION ON THE ONGOING FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT CASE IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

The Presidency has noted recent speculative reports concerning an ongoing Freedom of Information Act case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

For clarity, the matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute under the United States Freedom of Information Act. It is not a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, nor has the court found him guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.

Here is the background to the case, which comes 23 years after the American Consulate in Lagos, in a letter dated February 4, 2003, informed the then Inspector General of Police, Mr Tafa Balogun, that an FBI records check found no criminal arrest records, wants, or warrants for then Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
In 2022, Mr Aaron Greenspan, who is known to work with Nigerian opposition figures including David Hundeyin and Atiku Abubakar, submitted FOIA requests to several United States government agencies seeking records relating to President Tinubu. After the agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Mr Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
The court subsequently permitted President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.

During the proceedings, the Defendants asserted the "Glomar defence, a standard defence that US law enforcement agencies invoke from time to time. It simply means the government agency is not "in a position to deny or admit" the existence of an investigation. It protects government personnel and the techniques and sources law enforcement agencies use to investigate and prosecute crimes.

Based on the invocation of this defence, the United States District Court granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, EOUSA, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It ruled that they be removed from the proceedings, leaving aspects of the claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration for further consideration.
In compliance with the court’s orders, the FBI and DEA produced 399 pages of records, with portions redacted under exemptions provided by United States law. The Plaintiff challenged the FBI and DEA's decisions to redact portions of the documents produced.
The FBI and DEA, through the United States Department of Justice (USDoJ), pushed back against the Plaintiff's requests. The FBI and DEA rejected the application to produce the documents without redactions for the following reasons:
1. Some of the documents are protected from being revealed to the public by law, for example, Grand Jury proceedings. The law exempts transcripts of Grand Jury proceedings from public disclosure. The Pen Register Act also protects from disclosure information about certain court order(s) authorising or approving the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device. (FOIA Exemption 3)
2. Some of the documents fall squarely within the attorney-work product and attorney-client privileges. Some documents contain instances where FBI and DEA agents sought and/or received legal advice from USDoJ attorneys. (FOIA Exemption 5)
3. Some of the documents were prepared for law enforcement purposes. (FOIA Exemption 5)
4. Some of the documents contain information which, if revealed, could lead to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. (FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C)).
5. Some of the documents, if disclosed, will reveal the identities of confidential sources or compromise the techniques that law enforcement agencies use in investigating crimes. (FOIA Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E))
President Bola Tinubu, on advice of his lawyers, has also asserted his rights as guaranteed by FOIA Exemption 7(C).

The Plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition and reply to the Defendants' and Intervener's processes, while the FBI, DEA and the Intervenor have until September 18, 2026, to respond to the processes that the Plaintiff might have filed.

The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability. The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions.

The Nigerian media should note that this case is exclusively within the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court. She will determine its outcome, based on the evidence, applicable law, and the parties' arguments, not the wishful preference of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar or his agent, Mr Von Batten.

Recent public commentary by Mr Karl von Batten has inaccurately portrayed him and his client as central to the proceedings. Neither is a party to the case.
The litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA. It does not constitute a criminal charge, trial, or judicial finding against President Tinubu. The FBI and DEA have produced records with redactions, and the remaining question is whether those redactions are lawful.

The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary.

The Presidency therefore urges the media and the public to distinguish verified court proceedings from partisan speculation.

Bayo Onanuga
Special Adviser to the President
(Information and Strategy)
September 3, 2026

Did you know that a standard nuclear power plant could meet Nigeria's current energy needs 24/7?. A standard commercial nuclear reactor typically produces about 1 gigawatt (1,000 megawatts) of electricity, though individual reactor capacities generally range from 300 MW to 1,600 MW

Once you understand the reasons why this is unlikely to happen in Nigeria, you will realize why this electoral slogan project is a pipe dream.

Okpebholo1:
Obi narrowly won tinubu by 10k in Lagos. That won't happen again

After deduction of over 400,000 votes.

HacheNoire:
With the current desperation of Peter, he is still going to join the BlackAxe.

Dude just wants to familiarize with every religion and cult.

You sure wish whichever of the octogenarians you support had his energy, competence, and integrity.

aswani:
Good day to you and thanks for your response, I will try responding to some of your own kindly and respectful response. We can then go on from there.

I have two sections in bold, with the ones from the first paragraph, I will be grateful if you could bring proof as no one else has. Especially the one that is a matter of public record.

From the second paragraph, we know that figure stemmed from the lobbyist a few days ago. Some are now running hard with it despite no proof. Same as the private review.

To reiterate, this case started and ended with a glomar response. Greenspan moved on with his life while Hundeyin flogged the dead horse. He gave up in the end just as Ikeamafuna van Ndigbo picked it up and he is running really hard with it.

What exactly are you seeing in all this fake stuff that is making you think is true? I genuinely would like to say I am wrong and you are right, just give me something, anything.

Good evening.

I appreciate the invitation to “give you something, anything.”

I will do precisely that: the court record, rather than social media commentary, lobbyist claims, or partisan interpretation.

And I think this is where your argument unfortunately collapses.

You say, “The case started and ended with a Glomar response”. That is demonstrably false.

1. Tinubu’s intervention is not a rumor. It is on the docket.

The case is Aaron Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, et al., Civil Action No. 23-1816 (BAH), before Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The docket records that on October 31, 2023, Judge Howell granted counsel permission to appear for the purpose of representing Bola A. Tinubu, who has moved to intervene in this action. Two days later, counsel formally entered an appearance on behalf of Bola A. Tinubu.

That is not a lobbyist's allegation. It is a federal court docket entry.

https://foiaproject.org/case_detail/?case_id=36111

And it did not end there. The docket records another appearance by counsel for BOLA A. TINUBU in July 2025.

https://foiaproject.org/case_detail/?case_id=36111

So when I said Tinubu intervened, I was not speculating, and I certainly did not need a lobbyist to tell me so. It is a matter of public court record.

You asked for proof. There it is.

2. More importantly, your claim that the case “ended with a Glomar response” is contradicted by Judge Howell herself.

This is the most important point.

On April 8, 2025, Judge Beryl Howell issued a written memorandum opinion in this very case.

Her ruling begins by identifying the case, the plaintiff, the FBI, DEA and CIA, and the records sought concerning Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Abiodun Agbele. The court expressly records that the FBI, DEA and CIA had issued Glomar responses and that Greenspan challenged those responses.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2023cv01816/256792/48/

But then comes the part that completely destroys the assertion that the matter “started and ended” with Glomar:

Judge Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA's Glomar responses were improper and had to be lifted.

The court expressly stated:

“The Glomar responses asserted by defendants FBI and DEA are improper and must be lifted.”

That is the ruling of the judge presiding over the case, not Greenspan, not Hundeyin, not I, Ottersberger, not Peter Obi, and not any Nigerian politician.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2023cv01816/256792/48/

So the proposition that Greenspan was merely “flogging a dead horse” after a case that had already ended is simply incompatible with the judicial record.

A dead case does not produce a 2025 Memorandum Opinion granting the plaintiff relief against two federal agencies.

3. And the judge went considerably further.

Judge Howell did not merely say, “We cannot tell whether records exist.”

She addressed the government's claim that privacy justified the Glomar responses concerning Tinubu.

Her opinion records that the Department of Justice had officially acknowledged that Tinubu was criminally investigated as part of a broader investigation involving both the FBI and DEA.

The judge concluded that this official acknowledgment pierced the Glomar responses. She specifically held that because the FBI and DEA are components of the Department of Justice, they were bound by that official acknowledgment and could no longer refuse to confirm or deny the mere existence of an investigation of Tinubu.

https://app.midpage.ai/document/greenspan-v-executive-office-for-10840997?utm_source

[url]https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1%3A2023cv01816/256792/48/0.pdfts=1744185838&utm_source[/url]

That is an extraordinary fact to simply wave away as “fake stuff.”

Indeed, Judge Howell went directly at the government's privacy argument. She distinguished between:

1. Tinubu's privacy interest in keeping secret the fact that he had been investigated, and
2. his privacy interest in the contents of investigative files.

Her point was that the first could no longer sustain a Glomar response because the fact of the investigation had already been officially acknowledged.

https://app.midpage.ai/document/greenspan-v-executive-office-for-10840997?utm_source

So here is the empirical sequence:

FOIA request → Glomar response → appeal → federal lawsuit → Tinubu enters the case → federal judge adjudicates the Glomar issue → judge finds FBI and DEA's Glomar responses improper → judge orders that those Glomar responses be lifted.

That is not an interpretation. That is the procedural history of the case.

4. You are also conflating two entirely different questions.
Nobody serious is arguing that a Glomar response proves that Tinubu committed a crime.

It doesn't.

Nor does the existence of an FBI or DEA file, by itself, establish guilt. But that can also be interpreted as the endgame. A sort of catch and kill strategy if the agencies and Tinubu are under the same bedsheets.

But that is an entirely different proposition from saying that there was no case, no investigation, no records dispute, or no judicial development beyond Glomar.

The 2025 judgment alone makes that position untenable.

And Judge Howell's opinion actually describes the underlying FOIA requests in extraordinary specificity. One FBI request sought:

“The entire FBI file for Bola Ahmed Tinubu”

Another sought FBI Form 302 interviews with Tinubu from 1992 to 1993, identified by a specific FBI case number. The court records the FBI's responses to both requests and the subsequent appeals.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2023cv01816/256792/48/

You can dispute what those records ultimately contain.

You can dispute whether they establish anything incriminating.

You can argue that some or all of them should remain protected under applicable FOIA exemptions.

But you cannot honestly reduce the entire litigation to “a Glomar response” and declare the case dead. The judge's own published opinion says otherwise.

5. As for the 399 pages, I will be more careful than you are.

You are correct about one thing: the 399-page figure should not be treated as established merely because a lobbyist or news outlet reported it.

The recent reports say the FBI made an ex parte, in-camera submission to Judge Howell on August 28, 2026, and that the submission reportedly concerned 399 pages.

https://atlanticdigest.com/politics/fbi-seeks-secret-review-of-tinubus-withheld-records-nigerians-ask-why-a-presidents-file-needs-a-closed-door-hearing-to-explain/?utm_source

https://nnnewsmedia.com/tinubu-secret-us-fbi-drug-trafficking-records-hit-399-pages-as-call-grow-to-make-file-public/?utm_source

But because that material was submitted privately, it would be wrong to claim that we know the substantive contents of those pages. Nor would I claim that “399 pages” proves criminal wrongdoing. It does not.

That is precisely why I have specifically separated what is proved by the public docket from what is being reported about sealed material.

And that distinction actually strengthens my argument rather than yours.

Because even if we throw the 399-page claim completely out of the discussion, everything I have said about the existence and development of the case remains standing on the court record.

6. So what exactly am I “seeing”?.

I am seeing a real federal FOIA lawsuit.

I am seeing official FOIA requests for records concerning Tinubu.

I am seeing FBI and DEA Glomar responses.

I am seeing appeals of those responses.

I am seeing Tinubu enter the litigation.

I am seeing Judge Howell issue a substantive opinion concerning those very records.

I am seeing that the judge expressly concludes that the FBI and DEA's Glomar responses were improper and had to be lifted.

And I am seeing the litigation continue after that ruling.

Those are not things I believe because David Hundeyin, Aaron Greenspan, Peter Obi, Atiku Abubakar, a lobbyist, or anybody else told me to believe them.

They are things I know because they are documented in the United States federal court record.

So if you genuinely want to establish that I am wrong, there is a remarkably easy way to do it.

Don't tell me that Greenspan “flogged a dead horse.”

Don't tell me Hundeyin “ran with it.”

Don't tell me a lobbyist invented 399 pages.

Show me the part of Judge Howell's April 8, 2025 opinion where she says the case ended with a Glomar response.

You won't find it.

In fact, you will find the opposite.

And that is the fundamental problem with the argument you are advancing: it asks us to disregard the actual judicial record in favor of a narrative about what the case supposedly was.

The court record is not a narrative.

It is the evidence.

A particularly useful point here is that you don't actually need the disputed 399-page claim to win the factual argument. The 2025 opinion is considerably stronger evidence because it is a signed judicial opinion by Judge Howell herself.

Judge Howell's April 8, 2025 Memorandum Opinion
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2023cv01816/256792/48/

Case docket showing Tinubu's intervention and counsel appearances
https://foiaproject.org/case_detail/?case_id=36111&style=foia&title=on&utm_source

My friend, I am committed to resolving this issue truthfully, and I hope you will agree that considerable effort has gone into articulating the above position to further this discussion and, more importantly, to inform our readers of the validity of the conclusion I reached.

aswani:
You are welcome to disagree.

We had the same argument on the Kio Amachree thread where you disagreed and I was proven right as nothing came out of it by way of proof.

I believe same will happen again, nothing will come out of this as your position is one based on speculation without proof.

I do disagree, and please allow me to restate the case.

Now, it appears preposterous to me that you are adamantly working to obfuscate what is, by the available record, obvious.

If this matter were playing out in Nigeria, you and the camp you belong to might reasonably expect to succeed in muddying the waters. Fortunately, however, this proceeding is before a U.S. federal court, outside the reach of Nigeria’s notoriously compromised law enforcement and judicial institutions.

The relevant facts are not matters of speculation simply because some people find them inconvenient.

The case exists. The FBI and DEA issued a Glomar response to the records request. The plaintiffs challenged that response. President Tinubu then intervened in the proceedings. His intervention is itself a matter of public record and, at the very least, provides powerful confirmation that the dispute concerns records relating to him.

More importantly, the FBI has sought to submit a 399-page dossier concerning the President for in-camera consideration. The matter is now before U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell.

And the involvement of the DEA is hardly an incidental detail. Anyone familiar with the functions and jurisdiction of U.S. federal law-enforcement agencies understands why the presence of both the FBI and DEA in a records dispute of this nature is significant. It does not, by itself, establish criminal wrongdoing by Tinubu, and it would be irresponsible to claim otherwise. But neither does it justify pretending that there is nothing substantive here to examine.

That distinction is crucial.

No one is saying that the existence of an FBI or DEA file automatically proves guilt. The argument is much simpler: there are records, there is litigation over those records, the president has intervened to oppose their disclosure, and a substantial classified or otherwise protected submission has been placed before the court for in-camera review. Those are facts that should be confronted, not obscured through semantic gymnastics.

What remains to be explained is why the president of Nigeria is expending legal resources in a U.S. federal court to prevent the disclosure of law-enforcement records concerning him.

That, to me, is the more disturbing question.

Tinubu is not an ordinary private citizen. He is the number-one citizen of Nigeria and occupies an office whose legitimacy depends substantially on public confidence. If the records contain nothing capable of embarrassing or incriminating him, disclosure, subject to whatever legitimate privacy protections the court considers necessary, could potentially put the matter to rest.

Instead, he is fighting their release.

There is, of course, a difference between having a legal right to oppose disclosure and having an ethically compelling reason to do so. The fact that lawyers can advance a legal argument for secrecy does not answer the public-interest question. A president should be held to a higher standard than the minimum protection the law affords a private individual.

Indeed, the comparison with Peter Obi is instructive. When Obi sued Kenneth Okonkwo over allegations concerning him, he sought to compel Okonkwo to substantiate what he claimed to know. That is a fundamentally different posture from attempting to prevent the public from seeing official law-enforcement records that concern you, as Tinubu is engaged in.

So the question remains unavoidable:

If Tinubu is confident that these records contain nothing that should concern Nigerians, why is he fighting so hard to keep them from being released?.

He does not have to prove his innocence merely because an investigative file exists. But neither should Nigerians be asked to regard their president's determined effort to suppress access to those records as irrelevant.

The public is entitled to ask questions. The courts are entitled to decide what can lawfully be disclosed. And the president is entitled to defend himself within the law, but not to prevent access.

But when the president himself intervenes to prevent access to records that could resolve questions about his past, Nigerians are equally entitled to view that conduct as a matter of public accountability, political responsibility, and ethics.

At this point, the continued effort to manufacture confusion around the basic facts begins to resemble an attempt to create deniability rather than establish truth. What should worry every Nigerian is why their president is groveling before a US district judge in an attempt to prevent the release of his FBI/DEA records.

As the saying goes, it is easier to wake a sleeping man than one who is pretending to sleep.