₦airaland Forum

Peter Obi’s recent statement that he would pursue dialogue and seek the release of Nnamdi Kanu as part of efforts to calm tensions in the South-East has drawn loud criticism online. “You can’t negotiate with agitators,” some commentators say. “Releasing Kanu is weakness.”

But history — and recent government actions — tell a different story. Shaming Obi for proposing what Nigerian leaders have already done is not just inconsistent. It ignores the facts of how Nigeria has actually achieved peace before.

1. Yar’Adua negotiated with “agitators” — and it worked
In 2009, President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua faced a Niger Delta crisis: pipeline bombings, kidnappings, attacks on oil facilities. The militants were labeled “agitators,” “criminals,” “enemies of the state.”

Instead of only military force, Yar’Adua’s government opened talks. On June 25, 2009, he announced a 60-day amnesty. Militant leaders like Asari Dokubo, Tompolo, and Boyloaf dropped arms, surrendered, and entered a Disarmament, Demobilization & Reintegration program. In exchange, they received training, stipends, and development promises.

Result: Pipeline bombings dropped sharply. Oil production rose from ∼700,000 bpd in 2009 to over 2 million bpd by 2010. The Niger Delta Amnesty Programme still runs today. Whether you agree with all its outcomes or not, the fact is clear: negotiation with armed agitators restored relative peace and revenue.

No one today shames Yar’Adua for “talking to militants.” He is praised for choosing dialogue over endless war.

2. Tinubu’s government has also pardoned and engaged controversial figures*
Criticism of Obi often ignores what is already happening:

Sunday Igboho: Yoruba nation agitator Sunday Adeyemo, aka Sunday Igboho, was arrested in Benin Republic in 2021 and detained. Under the current administration, he was released and has been moving freely in Nigeria since 2024. No trial. No public condemnation of “pardon.”

"Repentant” Boko Haram: Since 2016, the federal “Operation Safe Corridor” programme has deradicalized and released thousands of ex-Boko Haram fighters after “repentance” and training. The Army and government defend it as a security strategy. Some returnees have been reintegrated into communities.

If government can deradicalize and release Boko Haram suspects, and can allow Igboho’s freedom, then the principle of “dialogue + conditional release” is already established policy.

3. Why Obi’s proposal is not radical
Obi is not calling for unconditional release of anyone convicted of violent crime. He has said dialogue is needed to address grievances driving separatist agitation in the South-East, and that Kanu’s continued detention fuels tension. That is the same logic Yar’Adua used: remove the symbol around which agitation rallies, address root causes, and give peace a chance.

Facts that make sense:
1. Military crackdowns alone have not ended IPOB-related sit-at-home or violence since 2015.
2. Court processes for Kanu have dragged for years, creating legal and political uncertainty.
3. Every major insurgency Nigeria has calmed — Niger Delta, OPC, Bakassi Boys — involved some form of negotiation, amnesty, or political settlement.

You cannot praise Yar’Adua for Niger Delta amnesty, accept “repentant Boko Haram” as policy, watch Igboho walk free, then turn around and shame Peter Obi for saying “let’s negotiate with South-East agitators and review Kanu’s detention.”

That is not principle. That is partisanship.

If dialogue is good for the Delta and Borno, it deserves honest debate for the South-East too — without name-calling. Nigeria’s unity will be built more on justice + conversation than on shouting down every leader who suggests peace talks.

Was this same Peter Obi in Coma when Nnamdi Kanu and his Ipob group were causing unnecessary insecurity in South East?

helinues:
Was this same Peter Obi in Coma when Nnamdi Kanu and his Ipob group were causing unnecessary insecurity in South East?

Was Tinubu in Coma when Sunday Igboho was put on wanted list by DSS and later pardon by tinubu government?

Hypocrite

1nice:
Was Tinubu in Coma when Sunday Igboho was put on wanted list by DSS and later pardon by tinubu government?

Hypocrite

How did Igboho get arrested? Did you see Tinubu shielding him?

Make una dey argue sensibly

helinues:
How did Igboho get arrested? Did you see Tinubu shielding him?

Make una dey argue sensibly

How did Igboho name appear on DSS wanted list? Why will tinubu pardon Igboho?

Make you self dey think before you talk

1nice:
Peter Obi’s recent statement that he would pursue dialogue and seek the release of Nnamdi Kanu as part of efforts to calm tensions in the South-East has drawn loud criticism online. “You can’t negotiate with agitators,” some commentators say. “Releasing Kanu is weakness.”

But history — and recent government actions — tell a different story. Shaming Obi for proposing what Nigerian leaders have already done is not just inconsistent. It ignores the facts of how Nigeria has actually achieved peace before.

1. Yar’Adua negotiated with “agitators” — and it worked
In 2009, President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua faced a Niger Delta crisis: pipeline bombings, kidnappings, attacks on oil facilities. The militants were labeled “agitators,” “criminals,” “enemies of the state.”

Instead of only military force, Yar’Adua’s government opened talks. On June 25, 2009, he announced a 60-day amnesty. Militant leaders like Asari Dokubo, Tompolo, and Boyloaf dropped arms, surrendered, and entered a Disarmament, Demobilization & Reintegration program. In exchange, they received training, stipends, and development promises.

Result: Pipeline bombings dropped sharply. Oil production rose from ∼700,000 bpd in 2009 to over 2 million bpd by 2010. The Niger Delta Amnesty Programme still runs today. Whether you agree with all its outcomes or not, the fact is clear: negotiation with armed agitators restored relative peace and revenue.

No one today shames Yar’Adua for “talking to militants.” He is praised for choosing dialogue over endless war.

2. Tinubu’s government has also pardoned and engaged controversial figures*
Criticism of Obi often ignores what is already happening:

Sunday Igboho: Yoruba nation agitator Sunday Adeyemo, aka Sunday Igboho, was arrested in Benin Republic in 2021 and detained. Under the current administration, he was released and has been moving freely in Nigeria since 2024. No trial. No public condemnation of “pardon.”

"Repentant” Boko Haram: Since 2016, the federal “Operation Safe Corridor” programme has deradicalized and released thousands of ex-Boko Haram fighters after “repentance” and training. The Army and government defend it as a security strategy. Some returnees have been reintegrated into communities.

If government can deradicalize and release Boko Haram suspects, and can allow Igboho’s freedom, then the principle of “dialogue + conditional release” is already established policy.

3. Why Obi’s proposal is not radical
Obi is not calling for unconditional release of anyone convicted of violent crime. He has said dialogue is needed to address grievances driving separatist agitation in the South-East, and that Kanu’s continued detention fuels tension. That is the same logic Yar’Adua used: remove the symbol around which agitation rallies, address root causes, and give peace a chance.

Facts that make sense:
1. Military crackdowns alone have not ended IPOB-related sit-at-home or violence since 2015.
2. Court processes for Kanu have dragged for years, creating legal and political uncertainty.
3. Every major insurgency Nigeria has calmed — Niger Delta, OPC, Bakassi Boys — involved some form of negotiation, amnesty, or political settlement.

You cannot praise Yar’Adua for Niger Delta amnesty, accept “repentant Boko Haram” as policy, watch Igboho walk free, then turn around and shame Peter Obi for saying “let’s negotiate with South-East agitators and review Kanu’s detention.”

That is not principle. That is partisanship.

If dialogue is good for the Delta and Borno, it deserves honest debate for the South-East too — without name-calling. Nigeria’s unity will be built more on justice + conversation than on shouting down every leader who suggests peace talks.

Is it that you Obidients are eternally dull?

1. Niger Delta militants were not fighting for a separate nation .

2. Ipob wants biafra ,that is their agitation, so if you say obi who is meant to be the president of a united Nigeria accepts their agitation then he shouldn't be the president in the first place.
3. If you claim ipob should be given their agitation then boko haram as well can go ahead and receive full recognition of their agitation after all they are fighting against western education.

You guys need to always think logically before dropping posts.

1nice:
Was Tinubu in Coma when Sunday Igboho was put on wanted list by DSS and later pardon by tinubu government?

Hypocrite

show us a video where igboho ordered his boys to kill security operatives?

Show us a video where igboho said anyone that comes out on Monday should be killed?

1nice:
How did Igboho name appear on DSS wanted list? Why will tinubu pardon Igboho?

Make you self dey think before you talk

Did Igboho force sit at home in SW? Was he even allowed to get involved? He was punished for threatening not for acting.

ESN, UGM are both terrorists wing of the Ipob which troubled the South East region for years.

Only if you have a clue about the role Kanu played with the end sars protest, he would have been hanged

1nice:
Peter Obi’s recent statement that he would pursue dialogue and seek the release of Nnamdi Kanu as part of efforts to calm tensions in the South-East has drawn loud criticism online. “You can’t negotiate with agitators,” some commentators say. “Releasing Kanu is weakness.”

But history — and recent government actions — tell a different story. Shaming Obi for proposing what Nigerian leaders have already done is not just inconsistent. It ignores the facts of how Nigeria has actually achieved peace before.

1. Yar’Adua negotiated with “agitators” — and it worked
In 2009, President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua faced a Niger Delta crisis: pipeline bombings, kidnappings, attacks on oil facilities. The militants were labeled “agitators,” “criminals,” “enemies of the state.”

Instead of only military force, Yar’Adua’s government opened talks. On June 25, 2009, he announced a 60-day amnesty. Militant leaders like Asari Dokubo, Tompolo, and Boyloaf dropped arms, surrendered, and entered a Disarmament, Demobilization & Reintegration program. In exchange, they received training, stipends, and development promises.

Result: Pipeline bombings dropped sharply. Oil production rose from ∼700,000 bpd in 2009 to over 2 million bpd by 2010. The Niger Delta Amnesty Programme still runs today. Whether you agree with all its outcomes or not, the fact is clear: negotiation with armed agitators restored relative peace and revenue.

No one today shames Yar’Adua for “talking to militants.” He is praised for choosing dialogue over endless war.

2. Tinubu’s government has also pardoned and engaged controversial figures*
Criticism of Obi often ignores what is already happening:

Sunday Igboho: Yoruba nation agitator Sunday Adeyemo, aka Sunday Igboho, was arrested in Benin Republic in 2021 and detained. Under the current administration, he was released and has been moving freely in Nigeria since 2024. No trial. No public condemnation of “pardon.”

"Repentant” Boko Haram: Since 2016, the federal “Operation Safe Corridor” programme has deradicalized and released thousands of ex-Boko Haram fighters after “repentance” and training. The Army and government defend it as a security strategy. Some returnees have been reintegrated into communities.

If government can deradicalize and release Boko Haram suspects, and can allow Igboho’s freedom, then the principle of “dialogue + conditional release” is already established policy.

3. Why Obi’s proposal is not radical
Obi is not calling for unconditional release of anyone convicted of violent crime. He has said dialogue is needed to address grievances driving separatist agitation in the South-East, and that Kanu’s continued detention fuels tension. That is the same logic Yar’Adua used: remove the symbol around which agitation rallies, address root causes, and give peace a chance.

Facts that make sense:
1. Military crackdowns alone have not ended IPOB-related sit-at-home or violence since 2015.
2. Court processes for Kanu have dragged for years, creating legal and political uncertainty.
3. Every major insurgency Nigeria has calmed — Niger Delta, OPC, Bakassi Boys — involved some form of negotiation, amnesty, or political settlement.

You cannot praise Yar’Adua for Niger Delta amnesty, accept “repentant Boko Haram” as policy, watch Igboho walk free, then turn around and shame Peter Obi for saying “let’s negotiate with South-East agitators and review Kanu’s detention.”

That is not principle. That is partisanship.

If dialogue is good for the Delta and Borno, it deserves honest debate for the South-East too — without name-calling. Nigeria’s unity will be built more on justice + conversation than on shouting down every leader who suggests peace talks.

one thing about u people is that u are not wise, at times u keep quiet so as to allow a mistake to die a natural death instead of bringing it back to live

Niger delta militants aren't fighting for seccesion but how their region can be compensated for oil spoilage and environmental pollution in their region can be addressed which isn't a crime.

Nnamdi kanu on the other hand is for secession which is treason, those two are absolutely different.

People who said obi will b a bad president have won on this one again, how can u release nnamdi kanu n u won't release Boko Haram terrorists too?


He's saying he will negotiate with agitators, so u want to tell me u don't know ISIS, al Qaeda, iswap and co are also agitating for something?

So after obi has released nnamdi kanu cos that what u people want, what if the isis and co made their demand and it's that all the south east people should change to muslim, will obi also grant that?

Like seriously it's becoming clearer that obi will b a disaster as a president

Counterigbolies:
show us a video where igboho ordered his boys to kill security operatives?

Show us a video where igboho said anyone that comes out on Monday should be killed?

Was Igboho even allowed to get involved? Is Igboho involvement not about the herdsmen crisis in Ondo state specifically. On this same forum, I know the role I played myself in rejecting anything Igboho's method, suggested what the state government should do .

Imagine the guy lying cheapishly just to back his concocted epistle

helinues:
Was Igboho even allowed to get involved? Is Igboho involvement not about the herdsmen crisis in Ondo state specifically. On this same forum, I know the role I played myself in rejecting anything Igboho's method, suggested what the state government should do .

Imagine the guy lying cheapishly just to back his concocted epistle

their mistake is that they ain't wise, they don't know when to keep quiet.

At times when your candidate make mistake, u lock up and keep quiet and with time people will forget about it but once u go on defensive mode then people will pick up all the errors n blow it open

If not because end sars issue is just too complicated to discuss online, if I spill the beans about what really transpired, it might cause unrest.

On that same Lekki protest whatever, I was on Al Jazeera, BBC and once in a while CNN. Al Jazeera in the morning had an interview with some security experts from Nigeria regarding this same end sars protest, one of the guest was even speaking from Ghana.

Then in the afternoon, BBC covered the event as they were on ground. Infact it was on BBC I first saw the curfew declared by LASG

While as well, I was on NL monitoring the event, make I take a break do something, I came back, everywhere is flooded with massacre story, at where, when . I actually undermine the movement I saw before evening.

Before saying Jack, anti spam got me till the next day as the mods themselves was overwhelmed. It was too late by the morning time as the misinformation already spread like fire.

We know the people behind most part of it but for peace to reign, better to let it slide as we are the one who slag

Counterigbolies:
their mistake is that they ain't wise, they don't know when to keep quiet.

At times when your candidate make mistake, u lock up and keep quiet and with time people will forget about it but once u go on defensive mode then people will pick up all the errors n blow it open

Their arguments are mostly too boring as they don't even know how to stick to what they are discussing

So as one created a thread yesterday claiming people twisted Obi's statement about not having a clue about the problem we are facing in Nigeria, I asked the guy to provide the video for us to see ,he couldn't

Then I asked him how about the statement he made about Farmers will suffer because the price of foods was coming down, he ignored.

When he came uo with their boring excuses, I finally dared him to provide me just one video where Peter was asked about anything related to governance and he answered accurately or at least convincing, he couldn't. There is no record of it

Now imagine someone who couldn't answer basic questions about governance, the position you are aspiring for , yet some people are projecting that same person to be the president of complicated Nigeria. Isn't that wickedness? Someone that can't even handle ordinary political party heat, he would run away if eventually become the president with the insecurity challenge we are having in the country

benardtotti:
Is it that you Obidients are eternally dull?

1. Niger Delta militants were not fighting for a separate nation .

2. Ipob wants biafra ,that is their agitation, so if you say obi who is meant to be the president of a united Nigeria accepts their agitation then he shouldn't be the president in the first place.
3. If you claim ipob should be given their agitation then boko haram as well can go ahead and receive full recognition of their agitation after all they are fighting against western education.

You guys need to always think logically before dropping posts.

"Calling people 'eternally dull' won’t make the argument stronger bro. Let’s break your 3 points:

1. Agitation type doesn’t change the method: Yar’Adua didn’t ask if Niger Delta wanted 'separate nation' or 'resource control' before negotiating. He saw violence + grievance, then used dialogue. The principle is: negotiation ends bloodshed. Whether it’s Biafra, resource control, or anything else.

2. Dialogue ≠ Accepting secession: Obi saying 'dialogue + review Kanu’s detention' is not the same as 'accepting Biafra'. Yar’Adua negotiated with militants but Nigeria didn’t break up. Jonathan talked to Boko Haram contacts in 2013. Talking to reduce killing is not surrendering sovereignty. If it was, then every president who negotiated was 'pro-secession'.

3. False equivalence: Boko Haram’s stated goal is to abolish Nigeria’s constitution + western education by violence. IPOB’s stated goal is self-determination via referendum. Both are illegal under Nigerian law, but the grievances, history, and drivers are different. Government policy already treats them differently: 'Operation Safe Corridor' for repentant BH fighters vs amnesty for militants. So 'if IPOB then Boko Haram' ignores how government itself has handled both differently for years.

If dialogue worked for Delta, why is it 'dull' for South-East? Address the idea, not insults."


So help me understand: Is dialogue the problem, or is it who is talking?

Counterigbolies:
show us a video where igboho ordered his boys to kill security operatives?

Show us a video where igboho said anyone that comes out on Monday should be killed?

You asked for video of Igboho ordering killings. I can ask you for video of Yar’Adua asking militants 'show video you didn’t bomb pipelines' before amnesty. He didn’t. He negotiated first.

That’s how states work: You separate 'prosecution of crimes' from 'policy to stop war'. Criminals are still prosecuted after amnesty if new evidence comes. But war ends through talk first.

If your standard is 'no dialogue until video proof of innocence', then Nigeria would still be fighting Niger Delta militants today.

So let’s debate principle, not play 'show me video'. Do you support negotiation as policy or not?

21lucky:
You asked for video of Igboho ordering killings. I can ask you for video of Yar’Adua asking militants 'show video you didn’t bomb pipelines' before amnesty. He didn’t. He negotiated first.

That’s how states work: You separate 'prosecution of crimes' from 'policy to stop war'. Criminals are still prosecuted after amnesty if new evidence comes. But war ends through talk first.

If your standard is 'no dialogue until video proof of innocence', then Nigeria would still be fighting Niger Delta militants today.

So let’s debate principle, not play 'show me video'. Do you support negotiation as policy or not?

oga nnamdi kanu crime is different from Sunday igboho crime.

Accept that first before we move on

After accepting that, I will give u a million reasons obi is wrong

Counterigbolies:
one thing about u people is that u are not wise, at times u keep quiet so as to allow a mistake to die a natural death instead of bringing it back to live

Niger delta militants aren't fighting for seccesion but how their region can be compensated for oil spoilage and environmental pollution in their region can be addressed which isn't a crime.

Nnamdi kanu on the other hand is for secession which is treason, those two are absolutely different.

People who said obi will b a bad president have won on this one again, how can u release nnamdi kanu n u won't release Boko Haram terrorists too?


He's saying he will negotiate with agitators, so u want to tell me u don't know ISIS, al Qaeda, iswap and co are also agitating for something?

So after obi has released nnamdi kanu cos that what u people want, what if the isis and co made their demand and it's that all the south east people should change to muslim, will obi also grant that?

Like seriously it's becoming clearer that obi will b a disaster as a president

Bro, let’s remove tribe and face logic. Silence isn’t stupidity. Sometimes silence lets anger cool so we can reason.

1. Niger Delta weren’t fighting secession: True, their core demand was resource control + compensation. But they were still armed, still bombing pipelines, still labeled 'agitators, enemies of state' in 2009. Yar’Adua didn’t say 'since you’re not asking for secession I won’t talk'. He said 'since Nigerians are dying, let’s talk'. The principle is: negotiation stops violence. Demand type comes second.

2. 'Kanu is secession = treason': Under Nigerian law, yes, secession advocacy is illegal. But prosecution and negotiation are 2 separate tracks. Nigeria prosecuted militants after amnesty if they committed crimes. Nigeria also deradicalizes Boko Haram under Operation Safe Corridor even though BH wants to overthrow the constitution. Govt separates 'ending war' from 'court case'. Obi talking about dialogue doesn’t cancel Kanu’s court case. It means 'address the grievance fueling the fire while court does its work'.

3. If Obi releases Kanu, will he release Boko Haram/ISIS too?': That’s slippery slope fallacy. Govt already treats groups differently based on context. BH gets deradicalization, not full release. Niger Delta got amnesty + training, not independence. IPOB dialogue would have its own conditions too. No president releases ISIS on demand. That’s fear, not policy.

4. Obi will be disaster': Prediction, not fact. Yar’Adua was also called 'weak' for amnesty in 2009. Today that amnesty is case study for conflict resolution. Judge leaders by results, not by worst-case scenarios we imagine.

So the real question: If dialogue saved Delta and is policy for BH deradicalization, why is it 'disaster' only for South-East? Answer that without tribe and we’re talking.

Counterigbolies:
oga nnamdi kanu crime is different from Sunday igboho crime.

Accept that first before we move on

After accepting that, I will give u a million reasons obi is wrong

Oga, I accept that Nnamdi Kanu and Sunday Igboho have different cases, different charges, different contexts. Nobody is saying they’re identical twins.

But that’s not the argument. The argument is about _method_: negotiation/dialogue as tool for peace.

Yar’Adua negotiated with militants who had different crimes too - some were kidnappers, some were pipeline bombers, some were oil thieves. Different crimes, same table.

So yes, Kanu ≠ Igboho. But the question is: If govt can negotiate/release Igboho without trial, and can deradicalize BH fighters with different crimes, then why is 'dialogue for Kanu/IPOB' suddenly treason?

Accepting 'different crimes' doesn’t mean 'no dialogue for both'. It means 'tailor the dialogue/conditions to the crime'. That’s what Yar’Adua did for Delta.

Give me your million reasons Obi is wrong. But first answer this: Is dialogue wrong as policy, or only wrong when Obi suggests it?

21lucky:
Oga, I accept that Nnamdi Kanu and Sunday Igboho have different cases, different charges, different contexts. Nobody is saying they’re identical twins.

But that’s not the argument. The argument is about _method_: negotiation/dialogue as tool for peace.

Yar’Adua negotiated with militants who had different crimes too - some were kidnappers, some were pipeline bombers, some were oil thieves. Different crimes, same table.

So yes, Kanu ≠ Igboho. But the question is: If govt can negotiate/release Igboho without trial, and can deradicalize BH fighters with different crimes, then why is 'dialogue for Kanu/IPOB' suddenly treason?

Accepting 'different crimes' doesn’t mean 'no dialogue for both'. It means 'tailor the dialogue/conditions to the crime'. That’s what Yar’Adua did for Delta.

Give me your million reasons Obi is wrong. But first answer this: Is dialogue wrong as policy, or only wrong when Obi suggests it?

if peter obi should negotiate with nnamdi kanu, will he not negotiate with Boko Haram, isis, iswap,al Qaeda n co too?

21lucky:
Bro, let’s remove tribe and face logic. Silence isn’t stupidity. Sometimes silence lets anger cool so we can reason.

1. Niger Delta weren’t fighting secession: True, their core demand was resource control + compensation. But they were still armed, still bombing pipelines, still labeled 'agitators, enemies of state' in 2009. Yar’Adua didn’t say 'since you’re not asking for secession I won’t talk'. He said 'since Nigerians are dying, let’s talk'. The principle is: negotiation stops violence. Demand type comes second.

2. 'Kanu is secession = treason': Under Nigerian law, yes, secession advocacy is illegal. But prosecution and negotiation are 2 separate tracks. Nigeria prosecuted militants after amnesty if they committed crimes. Nigeria also deradicalizes Boko Haram under Operation Safe Corridor even though BH wants to overthrow the constitution. Govt separates 'ending war' from 'court case'. Obi talking about dialogue doesn’t cancel Kanu’s court case. It means 'address the grievance fueling the fire while court does its work'.

3. If Obi releases Kanu, will he release Boko Haram/ISIS too?': That’s slippery slope fallacy. Govt already treats groups differently based on context. BH gets deradicalization, not full release. Niger Delta got amnesty + training, not independence. IPOB dialogue would have its own conditions too. No president releases ISIS on demand. That’s fear, not policy.

4. Obi will be disaster': Prediction, not fact. Yar’Adua was also called 'weak' for amnesty in 2009. Today that amnesty is case study for conflict resolution. Judge leaders by results, not by worst-case scenarios we imagine.

So the real question: If dialogue saved Delta and is policy for BH deradicalization, why is it 'disaster' only for South-East? Answer that without tribe and we’re talking.

the difference is because treason is different from resource control in the case of Niger delta.

As for the case of Boko Haram, they all are terrorists in d same group with nnamdi kanu n no same person should negotiate with them

Counterigbolies:
the difference is because treason is different from resource control in the case of Niger delta.

As for the case of Boko Haram, they all are terrorists in d same group with nnamdi kanu n no same person should negotiate with them

"Oga, you just contradicted yourself in 2 sentences.

1. Treason ≠ resource control': Correct. Different crimes. But Yar’Adua still negotiated with 'resource control' agitators. Govt still deradicalizes 'treason/terrorism' agitators under Operation Safe Corridor. So govt policy already says: crime type doesn’t cancel dialogue. It changes the _terms_ of dialogue.

2. BH are terrorists in same group with Kanu, no negotiation: If that’s your rule, then tell Buhari/Tinubu to shut down Operation Safe Corridor today. Since 2016, govt has deradicalized + released thousands of 'BH terrorists in same group'. Army calls it security strategy.

So which is it? Is your rule 'no negotiation with terrorists/treason', or is govt’s rule 'negotiation based on context'?

You can’t praise BH deradicalization as 'security', then call Obi asking for SE dialogue 'treason'. That’s not principle. That’s tribal lens.

Address govt policy first before you judge Obi.

Counterigbolies:
if peter obi should negotiate with nnamdi kanu, will he not negotiate with Boko Haram, isis, iswap,al Qaeda n co too?

Bro, that question is called 'slippery slope fallacy'. Let me break it:

1. Govt already negotiates differently based on context: Nigeria negotiates with Niger Delta militants for amnesty. Nigeria runs 'Operation Safe Corridor' for repentant Boko Haram. Nigeria does NOT negotiate with ISIS/Al Qaeda because they have no local grievance + no interest in Nigerian constitution.

So govt already knows: 'negotiate with Kanu/IPOB' ≠ 'negotiate with ISIS'. Context, goals, and history matter.

2. Dialogue ≠ Surrender: When Yar’Adua negotiated with militants, he didn’t give them 'control of oil'. When BH enters Safe Corridor, they don’t get 'Sharia for Nigeria'. Conditions are set. Same way, any dialogue with IPOB would have red lines: one Nigeria, rule of law, disarmament first.

3. Your question back to you: If Buhari/Tinubu negotiated with BH under Safe Corridor, will they negotiate with ISIS tomorrow? No. Because govt uses wisdom, not copy-paste.

So Obi negotiating with SE agitators doesn’t mean he’ll invite Al Qaeda to Aso Rock. It means he’ll apply the same wisdom past govts used: talk to groups with local political grievances to reduce deaths, while crushing groups with global terror ideology.

If you truly believe 'dialogue with one = dialogue with all', then you should be protesting Operation Safe Corridor right now. Are you?

21lucky:
Bro, that question is called 'slippery slope fallacy'. Let me break it:

1. Govt already negotiates differently based on context: Nigeria negotiates with Niger Delta militants for amnesty. Nigeria runs 'Operation Safe Corridor' for repentant Boko Haram. Nigeria does NOT negotiate with ISIS/Al Qaeda because they have no local grievance + no interest in Nigerian constitution.

So govt already knows: 'negotiate with Kanu/IPOB' ≠ 'negotiate with ISIS'. Context, goals, and history matter.

2. Dialogue ≠ Surrender: When Yar’Adua negotiated with militants, he didn’t give them 'control of oil'. When BH enters Safe Corridor, they don’t get 'Sharia for Nigeria'. Conditions are set. Same way, any dialogue with IPOB would have red lines: one Nigeria, rule of law, disarmament first.

3. Your question back to you: If Buhari/Tinubu negotiated with BH under Safe Corridor, will they negotiate with ISIS tomorrow? No. Because govt uses wisdom, not copy-paste.

So Obi negotiating with SE agitators doesn’t mean he’ll invite Al Qaeda to Aso Rock. It means he’ll apply the same wisdom past govts used: talk to groups with local political grievances to reduce deaths, while crushing groups with global terror ideology.

If you truly believe 'dialogue with one = dialogue with all', then you should be protesting Operation Safe Corridor right now. Are you?

nnamdi kanu agitation is for d east,Boko Haram using religion for the north


If u negotiate with nnamdi kanu in d east, won't u negotiate with Boko Haram in d north?

helinues:
Was this same Peter Obi in Coma when [b[Nnamdi Kanu and his Ipob group were causing unnecessary insecurity in South East?[/b]

Lies is one of the reasons why, I don't agree with you and your likes. Kanu and his IPOB are innocent of all the crimes Nigerian government leveled against them through their yeye lagos Ibadan gutter press.

What happened in SE was a state sponsored attacks. And it was all in a bid of giving a dog a bad name in other to kpai it.

Counterigbolies:
one thing about u people is that u are not wise, at times u keep quiet so as to allow a mistake to die a natural death instead of bringing it back to live

Niger delta militants aren't fighting for seccesion but how their region can be compensated for oil spoilage and environmental pollution in their region can be addressed which isn't a crime.

Nnamdi kanu on the other hand is for secession which is treason, those two are absolutely different.

People who said obi will b a bad president have won on this one again, how can u release nnamdi kanu n u won't release Boko Haram terrorists too?


He's saying he will negotiate with agitators, so u want to tell me u don't know ISIS, al Qaeda, iswap and co are also agitating for something?

So after obi has released nnamdi kanu cos that what u people want, what if the isis and co made their demand and it's that all the south east people should change to muslim, will obi also grant that?

Like seriously it's becoming clearer that obi will b a disaster as a president

Lol.. person wey dey support tinibu is accusing people of not being wise, no be juju be dat?

Come to this of it, if you are in a place where you are not being treated well as a human being, it's natural to agitate in other to be free and stay on your own. So how is Kanu's agitation for a separate country for his people bad?

Counterigbolies:
nnamdi kanu agitation is for d east,Boko Haram using religion for the north


If u negotiate with nnamdi kanu in d east, won't u negotiate with Boko Haram in d north?

Oga, you’re mixing 'location + religion' with 'govt method'. Let’s separate them:

1. Govt already negotiates in both North + East:
- North: Operation Safe Corridor is negotiation/deradicalization for BH. FG spends billions on it yearly.
- East: Past govts tried dialogue committees for SE agitators multiple times.
So 'negotiate with Kanu in East' is not new. 'Negotiate with BH in North' is already policy since 2016.

2. Agitation type matters for conditions, not for 'talk vs no talk':
BH uses religion as cover, but core issue FG addresses is violence + recruitment. IPOB uses self-determination, but core issue is grievance + detention. Govt doesn’t give BH Sharia for Nigeria. Govt won’t give IPOB Biafra at dialogue table. Both talks have red lines: Nigeria’s sovereignty.

3. If your rule is 'no negotiation with any agitator', then you must oppose Operation Safe Corridor too. If your rule is 'negotiate based on context', then Obi asking for SE dialogue fits the same rule Yar’Adua + Buhari used.

So the question isn’t 'East vs North'. The question is: Do you support negotiation as security policy, or only when your region/party is in power?

helinues:
Did Igboho force sit at home in SW? Was he even allowed to get involved? He was punished for threatening not for acting.

ESN, UGM are both terrorists wing of the Ipob which troubled the South East region for years.

Only if you have a clue about the role Kanu played with the end sars protest, he would have been hanged

If Igboho was 'punished for threatening not acting', why did FG release him without court conviction? Is that not political solution?

If ESN/UGM are 'terrorists', why did FG create Operation Safe Corridor for BH terrorists? Are they less terrorists?

If Kanu EndSARS role deserves hanging, why did govt dialogue with militants who killed more soldiers before 2009?

Answer those without tribe, then I’ll listen to why Obi is wrong. Because right now, FG’s own actions contradict your 3 points.

benardtotti:
Is it that you Obidients are eternally dull?

1. Niger Delta militants were not fighting for a separate nation .

2. Ipob wants biafra ,that is their agitation, so if you say obi who is meant to be the president of a united Nigeria accepts their agitation then he shouldn't be the president in the first place.
3. If you claim ipob should be given their agitation then boko haram as well can go ahead and receive full recognition of their agitation after all they are fighting against western education.

You guys need to always think logically before dropping posts.

Read the jargons you wrote and look at yourself and write the word dull again

1nice:
If Igboho was 'punished for threatening not acting', why did FG release him without court conviction? Is that not political solution?

If ESN/UGM are 'terrorists', why did FG create Operation Safe Corridor for BH terrorists? Are they less terrorists?

If Kanu EndSARS role deserves hanging, why did govt dialogue with militants who killed more soldiers before 2009?

Answer those without tribe, then I’ll listen to why Obi is wrong. Because right now, FG’s own actions contradict your 3 points.

How can you be comparing Igboho's case with Kanu? How many Yoruba's are aligned with Igboho's way of doing things?

Again, are the ESN, UGM became a terrorist just because they are envying the terrorists in North?

The militants you are referring to restricted their actions to their region without trespassing.

What did you think give birth to ESN and UGM if not the aftermath of end sars

helinues:
Their arguments are mostly too boring as they don't even know how to stick to what they are discussing

So as one created a thread yesterday claiming people twisted Obi's statement about not having a clue about the problem we are facing in Nigeria, I asked the guy to provide the video for us to see ,he couldn't

Then I asked him how about the statement he made about Farmers will suffer because the price of foods was coming down, he ignored.

When he came uo with their boring excuses, I finally dared him to provide me just one video where Peter was asked about anything related to governance and he answered accurately or at least convincing, he couldn't. There is no record of it

Now imagine someone who couldn't answer basic questions about governance, the position you are aspiring for , yet some people are projecting that same person to be the president of complicated Nigeria. Isn't that wickedness? Someone that can't even handle ordinary political party heat, he would run away if eventually become the president with the insecurity challenge we are having in the country

Let’s stick to the discussion like you said. The topic is Obi’s competence, not my ability to find YouTube links at 1am.

Provide video or it didn’t happen: That’s not how facts work. If I say 'Tinubu said subsidy is scam in 2012', I don’t need to drop video instantly or the quote becomes false. It means I should provide source later. You also said 'Kanu would have been hanged for EndSARS' - where’s your video/court verdict for that? We’re both guilty of 'no video yet.

Farmers will suffer because food price is coming down: That’s economics 101, not gaffe. If food price crashes below cost of production, farmers plant less next season = future scarcity. Buhari’s CBN, World Bank, and FAAN have all warned about that. You can disagree with Obi’s solution, but calling it 'no clue about governance' is wrong. It’s literally Agricultural Economics 101.

No record of him answering governance questions accurately: There are hours of Obi town halls, Arise TV, Channels, BBC interviews from 2022-2023 where he broke down debt profile, subsidy, power sector, agric. You may disagree with his answers, but 'no record' is false. 'No convincing record to you' is opinion.

Can’t handle party heat, will run from insecurity: Yar’Adua was called 'sickly, can’t handle stress'. He did Niger Delta amnesty. Jonathan was called 'clueless'. He reduced BH territory in 2015. 'Handling heat' ≠ competence. Results do.

So instead of 'provide video or shut up', let’s debate: Which Obi policy on security, economy, power do you think will fail and why? That’s the real discussion. Video hunt is distraction."

helinues:
How can you be comparing Igboho's case with Kanu? How many Yoruba's are aligned with Igboho's way of doing things?

Again, are the ESN, UGM became a terrorist just because they are envying the terrorists in North?

The militants you are referring to restricted their actions to their region without trespassing.

What did you think give birth to ESN and UGM if not the aftermath of end sars

Govt doesn’t check 'how many Yoruba/Igbo align' before security policy. It checks 'what will reduce deaths'. That’s why Delta amnesty happened despite few Ijaw support.

You said ESN/UGM = EndSARS aftermath. So cause is known. Prosecution handles crime, dialogue/reform handles cause. That’s Yar’Adua playbook.

MEND bombed Abuja 2010. 'Regional militants' also trespassed. Didn’t stop amnesty.

So my comparison isn’t 'Igboho = Kanu'. My comparison is 'Govt method'. Govt engaged Igboho politically and released him. Govt engaged Delta militants with amnesty. Govt engages BH with Safe Corridor. Same method can apply to SE to stop more deaths. Crime will still face court.