Anthony Obi Ogbo
Nigerian Politics 101: Malami was not comparing – he was wisely threatening and instigating a reprisal
Of course, brothers from the North are in the driver’s seat at the moment, but let it be known that, until this country undergoes a total overhaul of its governance system, nothing moves – not in north, south, east, or west.
For three days now or so, Nigeria’s political terrain has been stormy, but there was no natural weather condition. No, there was no rain. Last Tuesday, state governors from the southern part of the country, met in Asaba and issued a communique in which they demanded the immediate restructuring of Nigeria and the banning of open grazing in their areas of jurisdiction. The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, quickly criticized these resolutions in a fierce attack that generated more attention and controversy than COVID-19.
The resolutions further generated mixed reactions from different parts of the country, especially among politicians and the regime’s public servants in the North. For instance, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Abdullahi Adamu, quickly called it a “betrayal of . . . trust“ and accused the group of “playing to the gallery with their demand for restructuring.”
But, among all those who criticized this move, Mr. Malami’s comments seemed to have created unprecedented divisive chaos. Mr. Malami said that the resolve to ban open grazing by southern governors was equivalent to prohibiting spare parts trading in the north. He cited a possible statutory desecration of their actions, arguing that it “does not hold water” in the context of human rights as enshrined in the constitution. He cited the constitutionality of this resolution within the context of civil liberties expressed in the Nigerian constitution.
But the comment that got analysts and news editorials buzzing was when he compared open grazing and the spare parts trading in the north. Mr. Malami stated, “It is as good as saying, perhaps, maybe, the northern governors coming together to say they prohibit spare parts trading in the North.”
Most editorials and commentaries went wild and even published a long list of contrasts between Southerners who are legitimately doing businesses in the North and the wandering herdsmen in the center of the country’s current security dilemma. What these observers, however, failed to understand was that Mr. Malami was speaking in parables. In the context of Nigerian politics, Mr. Malami was not comparing the open gazing practice by herdsmen of the North and the North-based spare parts dealers from the South. He may have sounded like an idiot, but he is not stupid, and, therefore, carefully weighed every word he said.
Mr. Malami was essentially subtly issuing a veiled threat about the possible rebound, should the governors from the South proceed with their proposal. He was indirectly intimidating Southerners with a vengeful stance that could harm their economic interests in the North. Southern economic values and interests in the North are worth millions. Statistically, the Northern has no tangible interests in the South.
He was indirectly reminding the Igbos about the retributive consequences of challenging any policy that does not serve the Northern political interest.
Indeed, Mr. Malami has a reason for using “spare parts dealers” to convey his coded message. You may ask why it was only spare parts that crossed his mind. Yes, he was indirectly reminding the Igbos about the retributive consequences of challenging any policy that does not serve the Northern political interest. “Why Igbos?” one may ask. The explanation is that the Igbos have consistently been actors in the Nigerian political drama, where their lives, homes, and businesses are threatened through punitive governmental policies or exterminated through an organized ethnic cleansing.
Still fresh in the Igbos’ memory is one particular incident in 2013 when northern Islamic police in Kano used an earth‑hauling truck to remove and destroy more than 240,000 bottles of beer seized from supply vehicles and shops owned by Southerners, predominantly the Igbos. Alcohol is banned under sharia (Islamic law). The major concern with Sharia laws operating in northern Nigeria is the lack of respect for due process. The Sharia law is operational in all northern Nigeria states, and unscrupulous politicians and custodians of this legal system have customized it as a repressive tool to pursue their divisive, bigoted religious interests.
Thus, Mr. Malami had a reason for citing the country’s constitution as it reflects freedom or liberty of movement of citizens within the country. He knew that the constitution he referenced was designed to protect the interest of the North. Wisely, he knew that most other proposals by the southern governors would hardly pass through the protective walls of this draconian constitution. So, he was not seeking a possible compromise of these issues or challenges presented at the southern governor’s meeting. He was simply challenging them to “bring it on.”
The North and the South approach Nigerian public-policy matters differently. The northern politicians understand themselves, the politics of the land, and their brethren from the South, whereas politicians from the South are still bewildered by the fallacy of a so-called national character. And this would explain why, in the executive and legislative arms, no Southerner, past or present, has taken any steps to seek the path to a total constitutional overhaul. Thus, no legislation whatsoever has been written or debated regarding this cause.
So, what steps have a collaboration of lawmakers from the South taken to negotiate or legislate a constitutional amendment to pave way for a restructure?
Currently, videos of lawmakers from the South are littering social media in a usual Nollywood display, ranting about a constitution and a governmental structure that do not work. The truth is that presidents and governors do not make laws. So, what steps have a collaboration of lawmakers from the South taken to negotiate or legislate a constitutional amendment to pave way for a restructure? And how could this even be possible where these politicians are busy switching from one party to the other to protect their interests from dire communal challenges?
In a comprehensive vindication of Nigeria’s path to economic and political stability, the South could take a mental bubble bath to specifically seek avenues to overhaul the current predatory constitutional structure. It can never be achieved through an unintelligible, pugilistic approach of the “session” activists – for even a confederacy of this republic into independent regions require a constitutional process. Of course, brothers from the North are in the driver’s seat at the moment, but let it be known that, until this country undergoes a total overhaul of its governance system, nothing moves – not in north, south, east, or west.
♦ Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, PhD, is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News
“Jonathan’s calculated and weaponized ambiguity breeds deception and weakens emerging political alliances.” —Dr. Anthony Obi Ogbo
Former Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan has once again found himself at the center of presidential speculation, floating silently above the country’s political waters while supporters aggressively market him as a possible candidate ahead of another critical election cycle. And once again, Jonathan is doing what he has mastered throughout his political career: saying nothing clearly while allowing political confusion to grow around him.
This pattern is not new. It is the same indecisive political behavior that defined some of the most consequential moments of his rise and fall. Jonathan became president in 2010 following the death of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. At the time, many northern political stakeholders within the then-ruling PDP believed there was an informal understanding that Jonathan would complete Yar’Adua’s term but not seek another full term in 2011, thereby preserving the party’s zoning arrangement between North and South. Instead of taking a clear and immediate position, Jonathan spent months dribbling the nation politically. He neither fully denied nor openly confirmed his intentions until the political tension had already escalated nationwide.
By the time he eventually declared his candidacy, the damage had been done. Many northern allies who initially supported him felt betrayed, politically cornered, or deceived. The PDP fractured internally, regional distrust deepened, and Jonathan’s relationship with major northern power blocs deteriorated permanently. Though he won the 2011 election, the cracks created by that indecision followed him into 2015, contributing significantly to the coalition that eventually removed him from power.
Yet Jonathan learned little from that experience. Since losing reelection in 2015, his name has repeatedly surfaced during every major electoral cycle as a potential presidential contender. Each time, his supporters strategically floated his candidacy across media platforms and political circles. Each time, Jonathan refused to decisively shut the door. Silence became his political instrument, whereas ambiguity became his strategy.
Now the country is witnessing the same playbook again. As coalition politics intensify and opposition forces attempt to consolidate around alternative political movements, Jonathan’s name has resurfaced aggressively. Reports and speculations about his presidential ambition continue to dominate political discussions, especially within camps seeking to disrupt the growing momentum surrounding Peter Obi and emerging opposition realignments.
The troubling part is not merely that Jonathan’s supporters are campaigning. The troubling part is that Jonathan fully understands the implications of his silence. He knows that his political stature carries enough weight to destabilize fragile coalition negotiations. He knows his name alone can divide campaign structures, weaken consensus-building, and inject uncertainty into opposition calculations. Yet he refuses to publicly and definitively state where he stands.
That is not statesmanship. That is calculated political ambiguity. Jonathan’s political history is filled with similarly contradictory choices. After losing power in 2015, he received widespread praise for conceding defeat peacefully. He initially framed that decision as a sacrifice made to preserve Nigerian lives and prevent violence. Later, however, different narratives emerged suggesting international pressure, particularly from the United States under President Obama. The shifting explanations weakened what could have remained one of his strongest democratic legacies.
Then came another contradiction. Despite emerging politically from the PDP, Jonathan gradually aligned himself closely with the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari, serving in diplomatic and goodwill capacities that many PDP loyalists considered politically inappropriate. This unusual closeness fueled longstanding allegations that elements within the APC establishment viewed Jonathan as a useful political instrument capable of destabilizing opposition coalitions from within. Whether those allegations are true or not, Jonathan’s conduct has consistently created room for suspicion.
His political base remains uncertain. His campaign structure is invisible.
Today, his undeclared ambition is already generating confusion among supporters, coalition organizers, and opposition strategists. His political base remains uncertain. His campaign structure is invisible. His intentions are unclear. Yet his loyalists continue mobilizing aggressively in his name while he watches silently from the shadows.
Nigeria is too politically fragile for this kind of elite gamesmanship. At critical national moments, leadership demands clarity, courage, and accountability. Jonathan cannot continue operating as a permanent “maybe” in Nigeria’s political future, thoughtlessly hovering around every election season like an unanswered question designed to manipulate negotiations and weaken emerging alliances.
At this time, Jonathan should sit in or sit out! If he wants to run, he should declare openly, defend his record, and face the democratic process directly. If he does not intend to run, he should immediately and publicly withdraw his name from the political marketplace. Anything short of that increasingly looks less like political strategy and more like calculated deception. Nigeria deserves leaders who make difficult choices openly—not politicians who weaponize silence while others gamble with national uncertainty in their name.
♦ 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
Nigeria’s Forgotten Sacrifice and the Tragedy of Xenophobia in South Africa
As George Santayana famously warned, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” The unfolding xenophobic tensions in South Africa reflect more than economic strain; they reveal a deeper crisis of memory and meaning. When history fades, gratitude dissolves, and fear replaces solidarity. The violence directed at fellow Africans is not merely social unrest; it is a philosophical failure to reconcile past sacrifice with present identity, reminding us that nations, like individuals, must remember to remain whole.
.
I recall that when I was in college in Nigeria, all Southern African students, present in substantial numbers, were on full federal government scholarships and received an additional income called a bursary. They lived better than many Nigerians; some even drove cars. Many adopted Nigerian names, assimilated seamlessly, and secured opportunities with ease, while Nigerian graduates faced rising unemployment. It was a quiet but powerful demonstration of solidarity, Nigeria investing in the future of a region still shackled by apartheid.
Today, that history feels almost erased.
For years now, waves of xenophobic attacks in South Africa, often targeting Nigerians, and more recently Ghanaians and other African nationals, have revealed a troubling pattern: violence fueled by economic frustration, misinformation, and historical amnesia. Shops are looted, homes burned, and lives disrupted under the recurring claim that “foreigners are taking jobs.” Yet this narrative collapses under even the most basic scrutiny of history.
Nigeria was not a bystander in South Africa’s liberation; it was a central force.
Under the military leadership of Olusegun Obasanjo, Nigeria became the first country in history to boycott the Commonwealth Games in protest against apartheid. That decision was not symbolic; it was costly, bold, and globally consequential. Obasanjo went further, advocating a continental defense posture and proposing what he termed a “Black bomb,” a radical idea reflecting the urgency of protecting African sovereignty against external aggression.
Nigeria’s commitment extended beyond rhetoric. During the Ibrahim Babangida regime, South Africa sought to exert strategic influence in Equatorial Guinea, offering infrastructure support before the discovery of oil. Nigeria recognized the geopolitical implications and decisively intervened, severing ties and offering its own support. The situation escalated to the point where Equatorial Guinea petitioned Nigeria at the United Nations for intervention. Nigeria did not retreat. This was not interference; it was protection. It was foresight. It was leadership.
Nigeria funded liberation movements, provided education, opened its economy, and bore economic sacrifices, including the nationalization of British Petroleum assets, to pressure the apartheid regime. These were not acts of charity; they were acts of conviction rooted in a vision of a free and united Africa.
And yet, decades later, Nigerians are hunted in the very land their country helped liberate.
The tragedy of xenophobia in South Africa is not merely about violence—it is about the collapse of historical consciousness. A generation disconnected from its past becomes vulnerable to manipulation, scapegoating, and misplaced anger. Economic hardship is real, but it does not justify the erasure of truth or the targeting of fellow Africans.
If history were remembered accurately, perhaps the conversation would be different. Perhaps the anger would be redirected toward structural inequalities rather than neighboring nationals. Perhaps the bonds of Pan-African solidarity would still hold.
But memory has faded, and in its absence, resentment has grown. Africa cannot afford selective memory. Nations that forget who stood with them in their darkest hours risk losing their moral compass in moments of crisis. Nigeria’s role in the liberation of South Africa is not a footnote—it is a foundation. To ignore it is to misunderstand both the past and the present.
Equally troubling is the persistent failure of successive South African governments to decisively confront and eradicate xenophobic violence. Such inaction, whether intentional or not, signals a dangerous tolerance, if not tacit endorsement, of these attacks, allowing them to recur with impunity. If brotherhood is to mean anything, it must be anchored in truth and reinforced by responsible leadership. And if Africa is to move forward, it must first remember and act.
♦ 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
The cost of this misalignment extends beyond politics and erodes the strength and perception of the Igbo brand itself — Dr. Anthony Ogbo
Few ethnic groups in the modern world embody resilience, adaptability, and entrepreneurial drive like the Igbo of southeastern Nigeria. Forged by history, particularly the trauma and aftermath of the Nigerian Civil War, the Igbo spirit has evolved into a global force defined by education, commerce, and labor. Across Africa, Europe, Asia, and the Americas, Igbo professionals, traders, academics, and innovators have exerted disproportionate influence. Their philosophy of self-determination, “Igbo enwe eze” (the Igbo have no king), has fostered a decentralized, merit-driven culture that rewards initiative and hard work.
In many respects, this dynamism mirrors that of the Jewish people. Like the Jews, the Igbo have leveraged education as a primary tool of advancement, often placing extraordinary value on academic achievement as a pathway to mobility. In commerce, both groups demonstrate remarkable networking capabilities, building trust-based systems that transcend geography. In labor, their willingness to start from the margins and climb through persistence is widely documented. These parallels are not superficial; they point to a shared cultural DNA rooted in survival, adaptability, and intellectual capital.
Yet this comparison begins to diverge in political cohesion and strategic alignment.
While Jewish communities globally have often demonstrated coordinated political engagement, aligning interests, influencing policy, and maintaining a unified voice, the Igbo have struggled to translate their economic and intellectual strength into sustained political power within Nigeria. This gap has had significant consequences, affecting not only their representation but also their broader cultural and national standing.
A critical example is their overwhelming support for Goodluck Jonathan in the 2011 and 2015 elections. While politically understandable at the time, this near-unanimous alignment left the Igbo politically exposed following his defeat in 2015. In the aftermath, many Igbo communities perceived a decline in federal inclusion and influence, reinforcing a sense of marginalization in Nigeria’s power structure.
This pattern appeared to repeat, albeit in a different form, with the passionate and often uncompromising support for Peter Obi in the 2023 elections. Obi’s candidacy energized millions, particularly among youth and the diaspora, and represented a shift toward issue-based politics. However, the “all-or-nothing” posture adopted by segments of his support base, both online and offline, arguably alienated potential allies across Nigeria’s diverse political landscape. What could have evolved into a broad coalition instead deepened ethnic and regional fault lines, weakening the strategic positioning of the Igbo in national politics.
Beyond electoral choices, the Igbo political challenge is also structural. The absence of a unified political leadership or central coordinating body has made it difficult to articulate and pursue long-term collective interests. Internal divisions, elite fragmentation, and the rise of competing advocacy voices, some constructive, others reactionary, have further complicated alignment. Additionally, separatist agitations, while rooted in legitimate grievances, have sometimes overshadowed pragmatic engagement with Nigeria’s political institutions, limiting opportunities for negotiation and influence.
The cost of this misalignment is not merely political; it touches the Igbo brand itself. A people known globally for enterprise and intellect risk being perceived domestically through a narrower lens of political disunity or agitation. This perception, whether fair or not, has implications for investment, partnerships, and national integration.
The way forward requires a recalibration, one that does not dilute Igbo identity but strengthens its strategic expression. First, there must be a deliberate effort to build political coalitions beyond ethnic lines. Nigeria’s complexity demands alliances; no single group can achieve national power in isolation. Second, Igbo leaders across business, academia, and civil society must converge on a shared political agenda that prioritizes inclusion, infrastructure, security, and economic development for the region within the Nigerian framework.
Third, political engagement must shift from emotional mobilization to strategic negotiation. This includes cultivating influence within major political parties, supporting diverse candidates across regions, and investing in long-term policy advocacy rather than election-cycle enthusiasm. Finally, the Igbo diaspora, arguably one of the most powerful in Africa, should be more intentionally integrated into political strategy, leveraging its global networks for both advocacy and investment.
Igbo dynamism remains undeniable. The challenge is not capacity, but coordination. If the same ingenuity that built global commercial networks can be applied to political alignment, the Igbo will not only preserve their cultural and economic stature but also secure a more decisive role in shaping Nigeria’s future.
______
♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is with the School of Communication, Texas Southern University. Dr. Ogbo is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is also the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
-
Anthony Obi Ogbo2 weeks agoGowon’s Book and the Dangerous Politics of Selective Memory
-
Anthony Obi Ogbo1 week agoNigeria, South Africa: When Memory Fails, Brotherhood Burns
-
Anthony Obi Ogbo1 week agoBetween Silence and Sabotage: Jonathan’s Return to Political Manipulation
-
Anthony Obi Ogbo1 week agoIgbo Dynamism and The Politics of Misalignment
-
Column1 week agoFrom Noise to Votes: Nigerian Youth Must Turn Online Fire into Electoral Power
-
Community2 days agoWazobia Family Funfair AT 10 – Decade of Family, Culture, and Community
-
Nigeria1 week agoThe Devastation of Insurgency: Nigeria Cannot Kill Its Way Out of Insecurity