There is a curious habit in Nigerian politics: when an argument becomes inconvenient, some people abandon the issues and attack the person making them. Eustace Onuora’s response to my article, Uzodimma, Wike And Tinubu’s 2027 Power Game, appears to have followed this familiar route. Rather than confront the central arguments of my intervention with superior facts and sound reasoning, he descended into invectives and printable allegations. But political commentary is not a contest in verbal aggression. It is an exercise in interrogating power, testing arguments and demanding accountability. I stand by what I wrote, and no amount of personal attacks will make me surrender an argument I believe is sound. Onuora is entitled to his opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. What he is not entitled to do is substitute personal denunciation for a reasoned rebuttal and expect that the substance of my argument will disappear beneath the noise.
The central question remains straightforward: what is the appropriate place of Governor Hope Uzodimma in the APC Presidential Campaign Council, considering that he chairs the Progressive Governors Forum? I am not holding brief for Uzodimma, nor am I suggesting that his political decisions should escape scrutiny. But fairness is fairness, irrespective of whose interest it serves. As chairman of the APC Governors Forum, Uzodimma occupies a position that gives him a legitimate claim to a more consequential role in the party’s presidential campaign structure. The logical and politically defensible arrangement would be to make him vice-chairman or Director General of the Presidential Campaign Council, rather than leave him occupying the position of secretary. This is not a question of personal entitlement; it is about institutional standing, political hierarchy and the recognition due to the collective leadership of the party’s governors. If the APC expects its governors to mobilise their states, defend the administration’s record and deliver electoral victories, it must also demonstrate that their leadership counts when the party distributes responsibilities at the national level.
Even more troubling is the apparent absence of a firm response from the APC’s national leadership to Nyesom Wike’s derogatory remarks about APC governors. Whatever anyone thinks of Wike’s political influence or his usefulness to President Bola Tinubu, his relationship with the APC does not confer a licence to disparage the party’s elected governors without consequence. A governing party that cannot protect the dignity of its own leadership risks turning internal disagreement into institutional weakness. The question is not whether Wike should be allowed to express his opinions; it is whether the party’s leadership should remain indifferent when those opinions diminish the standing of its governors. Why should the APC expect loyalty, discipline and collective responsibility from its governors while appearing unwilling to demand the same standards from other influential figures within its political orbit? If the party believes in its governors, it should demonstrate that belief through its conduct, not merely invoke their importance when election results are at stake.
There is also nothing inherently wrong with Uzodimma aspiring to become Senate President, if that is indeed his ambition. Nigeria’s political structure has long been shaped by the need to balance its major regions and ethnic nationalities. The North, the South-West, the South-East and the South-South are all part of the national equation, and no serious discussion of power distribution can ignore the historical grievances of the Igbo people over their place in the Nigerian federation. The South-West has produced two presidents in Obasanjo and Tinubu; the North has produced several presidents and heads of state. The South-South has also occupied the presidency through Goodluck Jonathan, while Godswill Akpabio currently occupies the Senate presidency as a son of that region. Why, then, should the possibility of an Igbo politician aspiring to the same office become a subject of ridicule? If Uzodimma chooses to pursue the Senate presidency, he is entitled to make that political decision. The APC, in turn, should recognise that meaningful inclusion requires more than electoral support from the South-East; it requires a willingness to accommodate legitimate aspirations from the region. However, I must make a distinction: while I see nothing wrong with Uzodimma pursuing the Senate presidency, I do not consider that office the ultimate answer to the South-East’s long-standing quest for political inclusion.
The South-East has occupied the Senate presidency before, and history teaches us that the office, important as it is, does not automatically translate into enduring political influence for the region. During the Obasanjo era, the South-East produced four Senate Presidents in a row, Evan Enwerem, Chuba Okadigbo, Adolphus Wabara and Pius Anyim. Yet those successive tenures did not resolve the fundamental question of the region’s place in the highest executive office of the federation. Indeed, the frequent changes in Senate presidency demonstrated how vulnerable even the country’s third-highest political office could be to the calculations of the presidency and the ruling party. The ultimate aspiration should therefore be a Nigerian presidency in which an Igbo can compete on equal terms and command a genuinely national mandate. That objective must not be abandoned merely because a lesser office becomes available. Still, pursuing the Senate presidency does not contradict the larger ambition. The South East can seek representation at multiple levels without surrendering its ultimate destination. My argument is that the region deserves fair treatment within the APC, and if Uzodimma’s reported ambition creates an opportunity for the party to address that grievance, there is no justification for dismissing it out of hand.
Onuora should therefore return to the issues and leave the invectives behind. My article was an analysis of the shifting balance of power around Tinubu, Wike, Uzodimma and the APC’s 2027 calculations. It was not an act of personal hostility against the Imo governor, nor was it an endorsement of every decision he makes. It was an attempt to interrogate the implications of political developments that deserve public scrutiny. If Onuora disagrees, he should identify the factual errors, expose the weaknesses in my reasoning and offer a more convincing interpretation of the political dynamics involved. That is how serious public discourse advances. His response, in my assessment, was jaundiced and misrepresented the thrust of my argument. I know where I stand, and I have no reason to be intimidated by anyone’s attempt to turn political disagreement into a personal confrontation. I will continue to write what I believe the facts and circumstances justify, while remaining open to credible evidence and substantive criticism. But let it be clear: I will not be bullied into silence, and I will not mistake personal attacks for superior arguments. Onuora has made his case. I have made mine. The public can judge which argument better withstands scrutiny.
