By Peter Obi Media Express
For Tunde Rahman to lump Mr Peter Obi together with His Excellency Atiku Abubakar as “birds of a feather” in his ill-conceived article may sound fashionable in partisan circles, but politically and morally, it is a lazy conclusion that collapses under scrutiny.
Yes, both men have moved across political parties in pursuit of political relevance, but similarity in movement does not automatically translate to similarity in character, philosophy or public conduct. Politics in Nigeria has often forced politicians into strange alignments because parties themselves hardly stand on ideological foundations. But while one politician became associated over the decades with the old culture of power bargaining, state capture and elite entitlement, the other built a national reputation around prudence, accountability, simplicity and measurable public trust. There lies the difference.
Obi’s political movements were largely driven by electoral survival within unstable party structures, not by access to state power or patronage networks. Unlike Atiku, Obi has never been accused of using public office to build an empire of state dependency around himself. He left office in Anambra State with a reputation for financial discipline rare in Nigerian politics. He was perhaps the first governor in modern Nigeria openly questioned not for stealing public funds but for saving too much of it. That irony alone speaks volumes about the decay of Nigeria’s political culture. A society accustomed to reckless looting suddenly found prudence suspicious.
Yet, leadership is not measured by the noise of expenditure but by the wisdom of priorities. As the philosopher, Thomas Sowell once noted, “There are no solutions, only trade-offs.” Obi chose long-term stability over populist recklessness.
To reduce Obi’s achievements in Anambra to merely “setting up a brewery and saving money” is either intellectual dishonesty or deliberate revisionism. Under Obi, Anambra moved from near institutional collapse into one of Nigeria’s most stable and educationally competitive states. Roads were built. Schools received direct support. Mission schools were returned and revived. Health institutions improved. Security coordination strengthened. Most importantly, governance acquired a culture of cost consciousness.
Obi left substantial savings and zero debt in a country where many governors leave behind empty treasuries, unpaid salaries and economic ruins. Leadership is not measured by how loudly money is spent but by how responsibly public resources are managed. Lee Kuan Yew once warned that the real challenge of governance is not winning power but resisting the temptation to abuse it. Obi’s record aligns far closer with that philosophy than with the transactional politics dominating Nigeria.
That prudence becomes even more striking when contrasted with the long-running controversies surrounding Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the financial structure built around Lagos State, both during and after his tenure as governor.
For years, Nigerians have raised questions over opaque revenue systems, the concentration of political and economic influence around one network, and the transformation of public institutions into instruments of private political consolidation. While Lagos generated enormous wealth, allegations of entrenched patronage and excessive private capture of public resources persisted. Obi, on the other hand, left office without the aura of imperial control over Anambra politics or state finances.
There is a fundamental philosophical difference between a leader who sees government as a platform for stewardship and one who sees political dominance as an enduring commercial architecture. One preserves public resources; the other perfects political ownership of them.
The attack on Obi also conveniently ignores one stubborn political reality: no opposition figure in contemporary Nigeria has organically attracted the scale of youthful, cross-ethnic and cross-religious support Obi commands without state machinery, bullion vans, military backing or entrenched federal structures. That phenomenon did not emerge from propaganda. It emerged from public frustration with an old order many Nigerians believe has failed them repeatedly.
Obi became a symbol not because he was perfect, but because millions saw in him a departure from the culture of excess, impunity and waste that has defined too much of Nigeria’s leadership history.
On the other angle, His Excellency Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso deserves commendation, not ridicule, for reportedly futurising his presidential ambition towards 2031. In a fragile federation like Nigeria, where mutual suspicion and ethnic anxieties remain delicate realities, respecting zoning and rotational balance is not weakness but statesmanship. It reflects belief in national cohesion, peaceful coexistence and political stability.
Condemning such a position is either deeply ignorant of Nigeria’s historical sensitivities or being excessively mischievous. Leaders who understand the psychology of shared belonging often help stabilise democracies more than those driven purely by personal ambition. Sometimes, sacrificing immediate personal desire for broader national harmony is itself an act of patriotism. Another huge departure from Atiku, who evidently sees it as a birthright to contest for presidency at every political cycle!
As for the claim that the opposition has already doomed itself for 2027, democracy itself warns against such arrogance. History repeatedly punishes political establishments that mistake temporary dominance for permanent ownership of public trust. Power is never as secure as it appears when citizens begin to lose emotional connection with leadership. Nations do not collapse merely because opposition parties struggle; they collapse when governments stop listening, when criticism becomes intolerance, and when propaganda replaces introspection.
Nigeria deserves a higher level of political conversation than personal mockery disguised as analysis. Criticism is legitimate in democracy, but fairness is equally essential. One may disagree with Obi, Atiku or Kwankwaso politically, but reducing complex national issues into cynical caricatures contributes little to democratic growth. Statesmanship demands honesty, restraint and intellectual balance. In the end, history is rarely kind to those who weaponise influence against truth.
A new Nigeria will not emerge from bitterness, propaganda or political idolatry. It will emerge from accountability, competence, sacrifice and leaders who understand that public office is a trust, not a private inheritance.
The likes of Tunde Rahman should take note.
– A Peter Obi Express Media (POEM) Editorial response.