By Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko
With only a few days remaining before one of the most significant presidential elections in Nigeria’s political history, a rather mundane political shenanigan has been resurrected with considerable intensity by some political elements campaigning for the re-election of the incumbent president, Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The development I allude to is the banal and logically indefensible argument surrounding what has increasingly been described as an IGBO PRESIDENCY.
I am not suggesting that there is no validity in advancing the argument that it is unjust, unfair and discriminatory that the Igbo, one of Nigeria’s three major ethnic groups, alongside the Yoruba and Hausa/Fulani, have yet to produce a democratically elected president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, while the other two ethnic blocs have had opportunities to produce occupants of the nation’s highest political office.
Indeed, this apparent historical imbalance was among the considerations that informed the advocacy for rotational presidency, championed by prominent political figures, including former Vice-President of Nigeria, Architect Alex Ekwueme.
Therefore, this article is not intended to cast aspersions on the legitimate demand for equity, equality and equal opportunities in the contest for Nigeria’s presidency, particularly among the country’s three dominant ethnic blocs. Rather, it seeks to establish that making an unnecessary political mountain out of the supposed question of an Igbo presidency defeats the very essence of the agitation for fairness and equal opportunities in the Nigerian political system.
I wholeheartedly support the proposition that a competent Nigerian of Igbo extraction who aspires to become president should be given a fair opportunity to contest and win the election. Such an outcome would help address a longstanding perception of political exclusion and historical injustice against the Igbo.
However, attaching an ethnic nomenclature to the presidency, particularly in the manner currently being promoted by certain political actors, is potentially poisonous and counterproductive to the very agitation for which the Igbo have legitimately advocated.
The motivation behind amplifying this divisive narrative appears to be the fear that one of the leading challengers to the incumbent president, Mr Peter Obi, who happens to be Igbo by birth, is attracting considerable nationwide support in his aspiration to govern Nigeria.
Another fundamental reason for this infantile political narrative, particularly among some Igbo-speaking political figures within the All Progressives Congress (APC), is the apparent determination to poison the minds of non-Igbo voters against Peter Obi by exploiting ethnic sentiments. The ultimate objective is to persuade Nigerians to vote for Tinubu, as though the incumbent president does not himself belong to a particular ethnic group.
We shall return shortly to examine some of the public statements and arguments advanced by these political actors. First, however, it is necessary to revisit a chapter in the intellectual reflections of one of Nigeria’s most celebrated literary figures, Professor Chinua Achebe.
In his relatively short but profoundly influential book, The Trouble with Nigeria, Achebe explored some of the fundamental contradictions undermining the Nigerian state. Among the issues he addressed was the country’s persistent difficulty in accommodating and harnessing the contributions of its different ethnic communities.
It is against this historical and intellectual background that the arguments being advanced by some political loyalists of President Tinubu, particularly those of Igbo extraction, deserve scrutiny. Their insistence that it is not yet the turn of the Igbo to produce Nigeria’s president appears less like a genuine defence of national unity and more like an attempt to manufacture ethnic resentment against Peter Obi because of his ancestry.
WHY NIGERIANS RESENT THE IGBO: CHINUA ACHEBE’S OBSERVATIONS
The universally respected novelist Chinua Achebe offered a provocative interpretation of the historical tensions between the Igbo and other major ethnic communities in Nigeria.
In one of his final major books, There Was a Country, Achebe examined the historical experiences of the Igbo, including the resentment and discrimination that he believed had shaped their relationship with other Nigerian communities.
The book attracted enormous international attention following its publication. I personally purchased 12 copies from Central London on the day of its United Kingdom release and sold 10 of them at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport in Abuja shortly after returning from a two-week vacation.
Like many critical commentators on Nigeria’s history, Achebe made serious allegations against the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo concerning the prosecution of the Nigerian Civil War, particularly the blockade of food and essential supplies to Biafra. These allegations have continued to attract emotionally charged rebuttals and disagreements among commentators and political figures, particularly in the South-West.
Whatever one’s position on Achebe’s accusations against Awolowo, the historical consequences of the wartime blockade and the humanitarian catastrophe that followed cannot simply be dismissed. The suffering of the civilian population, particularly children, remains one of the darkest chapters in Nigeria’s history.
Achebe wrote:
“I have written in my small book entitled The Trouble with Nigeria that Nigerians will probably achieve consensus on no other matter than their common resentment of the Igbo.”
Writing under the heading, “A History of Ethnic Tension and Resentment”, Achebe traced what he described as the national resentment of the Igbo to certain cultural characteristics that gave them an advantage in the competition for opportunities in colonial Nigeria.
He argued that the Igbo culture’s emphasis on change, individualism and competitiveness gave members of the ethnic group an advantage over the Hausa/Fulani, whose social environment was influenced by religious and traditional structures, and the Yoruba, whose society was characterised by established traditional hierarchies.
Achebe portrayed the Igbo as an adventurous and enterprising people who readily embraced opportunities created by the arrival of Western education, Christianity and colonial administration.
He wrote that the Igbo, who feared neither God nor man, were effectively “custom-made to grasp the opportunities, such as they were, of the white man’s dispensations. And the Igbo did so with both hands.”
He further explored the historical transformation of educational and economic opportunities in southern Nigeria, arguing that the Igbo rapidly overcame the earlier advantage enjoyed by the Yoruba.
Although the Yoruba had enjoyed considerable historical and geographical advantages because of their proximity to the coastline and early missionary activities, Achebe argued that the Igbo made extraordinary progress after missionaries crossed the River Niger.
He observed that within a relatively short period, the Igbo had made remarkable advances in literacy, education and professional advancement.
Achebe maintained that Nigeria’s political leadership should have recognised and harnessed these qualities for national development. Rather than celebrating the competitive individualism, enterprise and adventurous spirit of the Igbo, successive political arrangements often treated these characteristics as threats.
He argued that Nigeria’s failure to harness the talents and entrepreneurial capacity of the Igbo contributed to the country’s inability to achieve its full developmental potential.
In his words, Nigeria’s “pathetic attempt to crush these idiosyncrasies rather than celebrate them” was among the fundamental reasons the country had failed to develop as it should.
Achebe also alleged that the exclusion of prominent Igbo individuals from influential positions was sometimes motivated by the desire to replace accomplished individuals with less qualified persons from preferred ethnic backgrounds.
He argued that such practices undermined meritocracy, national integration and institutional development.
However, Achebe did not reserve his criticisms exclusively for other Nigerian ethnic groups. He also expressed reservations about certain attitudes among his own people.
This observation is particularly relevant when considering the conduct of some contemporary Igbo politicians who appear willing to mobilise ethnic divisions for their immediate political interests.
WHEN IGBO POLITICIANS BECOME INSTRUMENTS OF ETHNIC DIVISION
Achebe criticised certain tendencies within contemporary Igbo society, particularly what he considered excessive pride, material exhibitionism and a disregard for humility.
He referred to such behaviour as “hubris, overweening pride and thoughtlessness, which invite envy and hatred”.
He further observed that contemporary Igbo behaviour could sometimes offend others through “its noisy exhibitionism and disregard for humility and quietness”.
These observations deserve serious reflection, particularly in the context of the current political debate.
The persistent argument that it is not yet the turn of the Igbo to become president is fundamentally misleading. It creates the impression that Nigeria’s presidency is an ethnic inheritance to be distributed among competing communities according to an informal turn-by-turn arrangement.
The danger is that some Igbo-speaking politicians appear to be promoting a narrative that could encourage non-Igbo voters to reject Peter Obi, not necessarily because of his policies, competence or political record, but simply because he is Igbo.
This is an unfortunate development.
Nigerians should be free to evaluate presidential candidates on the strength of their leadership capacity, integrity, public service records, policies and ability to address the country’s enormous challenges. No candidate should be subjected to an ethnic test that is not equally applied to other presidential aspirants.
‘IT IS NOT YET THE TURN OF THE IGBO TO BE PRESIDENT’ — DAVE UMAHI
One of the most prominent voices advancing this argument is the Minister of Works, Senator Dave Umahi.
Speaking on a Thursday in Benin City during an event associated with the ‘Operation Rescue Benin-Asaba Road’ initiative, Umahi reportedly questioned the suggestion that Peter Obi was politically or intellectually superior to him.
He argued that their respective family backgrounds, intellectual capacities and records of service to the South-East could be compared.
Responding to comments attributed to an individual identified as Awuzi, who reportedly alleged that some Igbo people were insulting Peter Obi, Umahi said he did not believe any reasonable person would insult the former Anambra State governor.
However, he described Obi as a lucky person and questioned why those criticising President Tinubu should expect members of the administration to remain silent while defending the president’s performance.
Umahi reportedly stated:
“If you are challenging President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the president is working and is using us to work and you expect us to keep quiet, we are not keeping quiet.”
He also challenged the suggestion that Peter Obi was superior to him, asking whether such a claim could be justified by comparing their family backgrounds, intellectual capacities and contributions to the South-East.
He subsequently declared:
“What we are saying is that it is not the turn of Igbos yet.”
This statement is particularly troubling because it reinforces the very ethnic entitlement mentality that Nigeria should be moving away from.
Umahi is certainly entitled to defend the administration in which he serves. He is also entitled to contest for the presidency or support any candidate of his choice. However, the argument that the Igbo should not aspire to the presidency because it is supposedly not their turn is fundamentally inconsistent with the democratic principle of equal political opportunity.
Umahi is not alone in this political choir. Other prominent Igbo politicians, including former Abia State Governor Orji Uzor Kalu and Anambra State Governor Charles Soludo, have also made public interventions that have contributed to the debate surrounding Peter Obi’s presidential ambition.
Their political positions deserve scrutiny, particularly when their arguments appear to reinforce the idea that the Igbo should collectively postpone their presidential aspirations.
The truth is that Nigerians should be encouraged to elect the most competent candidate, irrespective of ethnic or religious background.
Nigeria urgently requires leadership capable of addressing mass hunger, extreme poverty, youth unemployment, deteriorating public infrastructure and worsening national insecurity.
The presidency should not be treated as a compensation mechanism for ethnic groups. Neither should it be used as an instrument for perpetuating historical grievances.
‘VOTE FOR ME BECAUSE I AM COMPETENT, NOT BECAUSE IT IS MY TURN’ — PETER OBI
Peter Obi himself addressed the controversy surrounding ethnic entitlement and presidential ambition during the 2022 presidential campaign.
At a presidential town hall organised by Arise News, the former Anambra State governor urged Nigerians not to vote for him because he was Igbo, Christian or from the South-East.
Rather, he insisted that Nigerians should assess him on the basis of his competence and capacity to govern.
He reportedly stated:
“Do not vote for Peter Obi because I am from the South-East, because I am a Christian, because I am an Igbo man, or because it is my turn. It is the turn of Nigerian youths and women. It is nobody’s turn.”
He further stated:
“I want you to vote for Peter Obi because I am qualified. Because I am competent. I know what I can do to put this country out of the brink.”
Obi also discussed his proposed approach to tackling insecurity, emphasising the need to strengthen community-based security arrangements and improve collaboration between local vigilante groups and the police.
He argued that communities should be supported with appropriate vehicles, communication equipment and other resources to enable them to work effectively with conventional security agencies.
He also criticised the government’s handling of intelligence preceding the Abuja-Kaduna train attack, arguing that warning signs had not been adequately acted upon.
His position was that a responsible government must take intelligence seriously, respond promptly to security threats and maintain effective communication with affected families and the wider public.
Whether one supports Peter Obi or disagrees with his political philosophy, his insistence that Nigerians should assess him on competence rather than ethnicity is an important contribution to the national conversation.
Indeed, that should be the standard for every presidential aspirant.
CONCLUSION: NIGERIA NEEDS A PRESIDENT, NOT AN ETHNIC REPRESENTATIVE
My position is that the idea of an Igbo presidency should not arise as a defining issue in the January 2027 presidential election.
The persistent promotion of this narrative by certain political actors appears designed to undermine Peter Obi’s nationwide appeal, particularly in Northern Nigeria, while mobilising political support for the incumbent president.
There are growing concerns among sections of the electorate about the economic and security conditions confronting the country. The hardship associated with inflation, poverty, unemployment and the cost of living has generated considerable public dissatisfaction with the Tinubu administration.
Consequently, some political loyalists of the incumbent appear increasingly concerned about the possibility of losing electoral support, particularly in parts of Northern Nigeria.
The North remains a critical electoral constituency because of its considerable voting population and political influence. Any presidential candidate seeking victory must therefore earn the confidence of voters across the region and throughout the federation.
However, it is disingenuous for political actors to portray Peter Obi as an exclusively Igbo presidential candidate while presenting Bola Ahmed Tinubu simply as a Nigerian presidential candidate, without acknowledging that he too comes from a particular ethnic background.
Why should Peter Obi’s ancestry become the defining feature of his presidential ambition while the ethnic background of other candidates is conveniently ignored?
This is the fundamental contradiction in the current political argument.
Nigeria cannot build a united and democratic society by selectively applying ethnic identity to political opponents while pretending that candidates from other ethnic backgrounds are somehow ethnically neutral.
The presidency belongs to the Nigerian people. Every qualified Nigerian, whether Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa/Fulani or from any other ethnic community, has an equal constitutional right to aspire to occupy that office.
There is no constitutional provision establishing a Yoruba presidency, a Hausa/Fulani presidency or an Igbo presidency. There is only the presidency of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Therefore, if there is no exclusive Yoruba presidency or Hausa/Fulani presidency, there should equally be no exclusive Igbo presidency.
The time has come for Nigerians to abandon ethnic entitlement politics and embrace competence, accountability, integrity and national development. Nigeria needs a president who can unite its people and deliver good governance, not an ethnic representative whose legitimacy depends on the ancestry of his birth.
Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko is the founder of the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) and a former National Commissioner of the National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria.
