Anthony Obi Ogbo
Peter Obi: Between the Politics of a Delegate and the Downing Street Photoshoot
“Obi’s latest political move contradicts his own gospel of being indispensable, and it hurts his credibility moving forward.”
Just a few days before his People’s Democratic Party (PDP) was due for its national convention, Nigerian presidential hopeful Peter Obi shocked his camp with an announcement. Mr. Obi announced his resignation from the party and also his withdrawal from the presidential race on his party’s slate. There were, however, rumors that he would join the Labour Party (LP) to continue his presidential ambition.
So, what are Mr. Obi’s excuses? Here is an excerpt from his resignation letter addressed to the party’s National Chairman Iyorchia Ayu:
“It has been a great honor to contribute to the nation-building efforts through our party. Unfortunately, recent developments within our party make it practically impossible to continue participating and making constructive contributions…Our national challenges are deep-seated and require each of us to make profound sacrifices toward rescuing our country. My commitment to rescuing Nigeria remains firm, even if the route differs.”
The next question would be: Why would front running presidential candidate resign just a few days before the national convention, where his party would choose a presidential candidate to run in the election less than 10 months away?
It might suggest that this candidate is not ready for primetime; that he has no clue about his politics and cannot coordinate the complex reins that suffuse Nigeria’s political terrain. It contradicts his “holier than thou” electioneering gospel, leaving himself as the main enemy of his own philosophy. To make matters worse, his argument that disparities within the party would not deter his mission to rescue Nigeria further opens up his ideological anguish. He is simply professing that he could run in an election under any party, including the incumbent All Progressive Congress (APC)—a party he has spent months lampooning as a failed entity.
Days prior to his resignation, Obi arrived at the British Prime Minister’s residence at 10 Downing Street. He claimed that he was there to meet with officials but did not share the outcome of the meeting. Rather, he circulated photos of his visit on social media as campaign material.
He was recently busy in London doing a photoshoot with Prime Minister’s staff.
In my last article regarding this subject, I cited one of Obi’s flaws: he runs a weak campaign that lacks in strategies but feeds the audience with messages incompatible with situational reality. Where other contenders are focused on the politics of winning delegates, Obi is busy, trotting through states and cities promoting his self-proclaimed sainthood. He was recently busy in London doing a photoshoot with Prime Minister’s staff.
The delegate politics in any party primary election is crucial. In Nigeria, it’s hardball. According to Dr. Doyin Okupe, a senior special assistant for public affairs to former President Goodluck Jonathan, “Delegate elections are devoid of conscience, rational thinking, patriotism, or the principles of right or wrong.” (Guardian, May 23). Dr. Okupe also noted that 70–80% of delegates vote according to the dictates of their leaders. Most often, it has nothing to do with their personal convictions.
Indeed, Obi’s camp might still be waiting on him to open up in sincerity, that he resigned because he was convinced that he had lost the battle for winning delegates. He did not only lose the delegate battle but was completely subdued by the collaboration of Governor Nyesom Wike of Rivers and Chief Chris Uba. This development was rightly echoed in a publication of ThisDay: “Uba is working for Wike. They want to influence the election of ad-hoc delegates, as this will help Uba himself, who is a senatorial aspirant…and [he will] also be able to influence the process enough to get delegates who will be loyal to his candidate, Wike, against Peter Obi.”
Delegate politics is simply an amoral process involving raw cash, influence, and egotism.
Obi is not new to Nigerian politics, nor about delegates and political parties. Definitely, it does not matter how many trips a candidate makes to 10 Downing Street. Delegate politics is simply an amoral process involving raw cash, influence, and egotism. Noted Dr. Okupe, “In the last PDP convention in Port Harcourt in 2019, most delegates went home with between $8,000 and $10,000. This year, the figures are bound to be higher. The big spenders are prepared to go as far as $10,000 per delegate.”
An average Nigerian politician is a dishonest soul with one mission—to defraud the system.
Please do not get me wrong. There is nothing right about an election process structured in bribery and corruption. Unfortunately, this has been the culture espoused by the Nigerian political sector. Also, there are no innocent politicians in Nigeria. An average Nigerian politician is a dishonest soul with one mission—to defraud the system. Consequently, an aspiring politician is a part of a potential scam risk waiting for an opportunity to do the same damage. Obi is not a saint. He is a Nigerian politician.
Analysts argue that his current position might earn him a position as a running mate for a major candidate. Others in his camp vow to support him irrespective of his decisions. Again, in Nigeria’s political arena, anything is possible. But Obi’s latest political move contradicts his own gospel of being indispensable, and it hurts his credibility moving forward.
♦Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D. is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
- FITCC Partners with Texas Southern University - September 17, 2023
- Houston Resident Builds Library In Sagyimase, Ghana - September 17, 2023
- Coco Gauff subdues Aryna Sabalenka to win the U.S. Open for her first Grand Slam title - September 9, 2023
“The scepter of criminal law is permanently blind to human compassion, emotions, or interests. Making Trump and his cronies pay dearly for their crimes is justified, at the least, in terms of deterrence and retribution,” —Anthony Ogbo
Thursday, former President Donald Trump was booked on charges that he conspired to overturn the results of Georgia’s 2020 presidential election. His mugshot quickly turned into a piece of illustrious image canonized by the rightwing media and glorified like a martyr of political persecution. In less than two hours after Trump’s booking, his mug shot was already a hot cake.
His joint fundraising committee sold T-shirts, mugs, beverage coolers, bumper stickers, and other merchandise featuring his booking photo.
There were also reports that Trump and his team literally strategized on how to turn this historically horrible event into an image-hyping and money-spinning bonanza. They had a discussion as to what the mug shot would look like. Trump reportedly wanted to look “defiant” to justify his claims of a politically motivated witch-hunt. In fact, in a fundraising email, Trump said he “walked into the lion’s den with one simple message on behalf of our entire movement: I will never surrender our mission to save America.”
So, what exactly are Trump and his Republican Party devotees celebrating? – Conspiring to attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election? Criminals should not be celebrated!
Charges against Trump are very serious. He was indicted on 13 counts of criminal felonies, including an alleged violation of Georgia’s Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Rico). The racketeering charge alone carries a maximum 20-year jail sentence; making false statements carries a penalty of between one to five years in prison or a fine, and a person convicted of first-degree criminal solicitation to commit election fraud will face between one to three years in jail. The charges revolve around Trump’s and 18 co-defendants’ efforts to overturn the will of the voters and interfere with the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Therefore, it might be a self-damaging miscalculation if Trump and his team believe these charges would help his campaign. It is understandable that the MAGA confederacy stands behind his transgressions, but America thinks otherwise. For instance, a new POLITICO Magazine/Ipsos poll provides some negative figures likely to take a toll on his general election prospects. The findings are not encouraging at all on his part
-
- Most Americans believe Trump should stand trial before the 2024 election
- About half of the country believes Trump is guilty in the pending prosecutions
- A conviction in DOJ’s 2020 election case would hurt Trump in the general election
- Half of the country believes Trump should go to prison if convicted in DOJ’s Jan. 6 case
- Fifty-nine percent of respondents — including nearly two-thirds of independents — said that the Justice Department’s decision to indict Trump in the 2020 election case was based on a fair evaluation of the evidence and the law.
But the scepter of criminal law is permanently blind to human compassion, emotions, or interests. Making Trump and his cronies pay dearly for their crimes is justified, at the least, in terms of deterrence and retribution. The law must act in full force, to deter prospective offenders from following Trump’s amoral and criminal standards. Besides, this process would enhance faith in law enforcement and the government that the criminal procedure is works effectively.
Finally, we must note that former presidents or top government officials are not Jesus. They are humans, and they are average citizens. From Jacob Zuma, a former president of South Africa; Silvio Berlusconi, former Italian Prime Minister; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan and many others, top leaders who left office have been jailed or prosecuted in several countries — including in major democratic jurisdictions. The relevance is that the laws apply equally to all citizens. Donald Trump and his coup-plotting ensemble are no exceptions.
♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D. is a visiting professor at the Texas Southern University. He is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News, and the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
- FITCC Partners with Texas Southern University - September 17, 2023
- Houston Resident Builds Library In Sagyimase, Ghana - September 17, 2023
- Coco Gauff subdues Aryna Sabalenka to win the U.S. Open for her first Grand Slam title - September 9, 2023
- FITCC Partners with Texas Southern University - September 17, 2023
- Houston Resident Builds Library In Sagyimase, Ghana - September 17, 2023
- Coco Gauff subdues Aryna Sabalenka to win the U.S. Open for her first Grand Slam title - September 9, 2023
“It is unlawful to challenge a statute by arrogantly violating it. Moreover, it is insensitive to use the needy as a shield for a pugnacious political vendetta”
—Anthony Ogbo
So, this motorist wanted to drop a token for the panhandler. He stopped abruptly in the middle of a bustling intersection while the traffic light was green. This resulted in the near collision of multiple vehicles. Furthermore, he blocked a lane while the panhandler reluctantly walked up. It was a mess. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with giving to roadside beggars, but how, when, and where people do this matters—especially when it constitutes risks and lawlessness.
The above-referenced real-world analogy illustrates the over-published feud between the City of Houston and Food Not Bombs, a volunteer group that feeds the homeless. For the last 15 years, Food Not Bombs has been serving the homeless outside the Houston Public Library downtown, dishing out vegetarian meals four nights a week at this location by the corner of McKinney and Smith streets. However, on March 1, the group received a citation from the City of Houston for violating a city ordinance.
This ordinance was actually enacted in 2012 under the previous regime of Mayor Annise Parker. The law makes it “unlawful for any organization or individual to sponsor or conduct a food service event on public or private property without the advance written consent of the public or private property owner or other individual with lawful control of the property.”
Food Not Bombs is not permitted to hold its distribution outside the library. It might be understandable that the volunteer group may have initially violated this law because it was unaware of the regulation. But what might be underhandedly political is why they remained in that location, proudly collecting multiple citations from the city, shedding crocodile tears, and using them to generate cheap publicity and attention from the mainstream media.
Currently, Food Not Bombs spends more time documenting and litigating violation tickets than the very cause they are supposed to be undertaking. On August 3, eight of the 47 tickets were dismissed because the HPD officers that issued them did not show up for court. The group vowed to fight, but the city insisted on its enforcement. In its release, the city maintained that it “intends to vigorously pursue violations of its ordinance relating to the feeding of the homeless,” vowing to “refile cases dismissed without prejudice.”
From all indications, Food Not Bombs does not like this ordinance, but rather than challenge it lawfully, it chose a civil disobedience route. Even as the city offered it an alternate location less than half a mile away to hold their feedings, the group stubbornly decided not to move.
During an August 8 City Council meeting, Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner said the city doesn’t have an issue with volunteers feeding the unhoused population but does have a problem with it being at the Central Library. According to Mayor Turner, “Can we provide food for those who need assistance and also maintain the library for the greater community, even those who are homeless, to utilize those services? The answer is yes.… You just don’t have the right to choose where you want to be at the expense of everybody else in the city. So, the citations will continue because you can’t just do this and then try to engage in a PR campaign to make it seem like the city is being insensitive to those who are homeless. No, that is not the case.”
Mayor Turner was absolutely right about the intent. The whole thing is a PR operation by radicals hiding under a charitable cause to promote tasteless conspiracies against the local government. Only a fool will buy that theory – that the city is insensitive to the homeless. These laws are not meant to discourage or criminalize kindness but to protect general safety, and guarantee the rights of citizens against abuses by other people, organizations, and the government.
There are many ways to protest local ordinances, and trading a charitable cause for civil disobedience is not one of them. Justice is not stupid. Indeed, it is unlawful to challenge a statute by arrogantly violating it. Moreover, it is insensitive to use the homeless as a shield for a pugnacious political vendetta.
♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D. is a visiting professor at the Texas Southern University. He is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News, and the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
- FITCC Partners with Texas Southern University - September 17, 2023
- Houston Resident Builds Library In Sagyimase, Ghana - September 17, 2023
- Coco Gauff subdues Aryna Sabalenka to win the U.S. Open for her first Grand Slam title - September 9, 2023
-
Africa4 days agoHouston Resident Builds Library In Sagyimase, Ghana
-
Business2 weeks agoUpcoming FITCC Conference – One-on-One with the Event Facilitator, Linda Anukwuem
-
Business4 days agoFITCC Partners with Texas Southern University
-
News2 weeks agoCoco Gauff subdues Aryna Sabalenka to win the U.S. Open for her first Grand Slam title