NSCDC parades 13 suspects for cable vandalism, robbery, trafficking

In a major operational success aimed at protecting Critical National Assets and Infrastructure, CNAI, the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps, NSCDC, has arrested 13 persons suspected to be involved in cable vandalism, armed robbery, car theft and human trafficking.

The National Public Relations Officer of the Corps, Assistant Commandant Babawale Afolabi, disclosed this during a press parade at the Corps’ National Headquarters, Abuja, and at a crime scene in Yangoji, Kwali Area Council of the FCT.

Afolabi stated that the arrests were executed by operatives of the Commandant General’s Special Intelligence Squad, CG’s SIS, following credible intelligence.

He explained that the coordinated operations spanned seven locations, including the Federal Capital Territory, Nasarawa, Plateau, Kogi, Benue, Niger and Kaduna States.

Among those arrested is one Isaac Zegbe, 25, a former staff of the Abuja Electricity Distribution Company, AEDC, whose arrest is considered a significant breakthrough in the fight against power infrastructure vandalism.

The Corps reiterated its commitment to eradicating all forms of criminality threatening national assets and public safety, adding that further investigations are ongoing.

Authority.

Obi won’t respond to surrogates/aides of other presidential candidates again -Office

The Peter Obi Media Office unequivocally made it clear that Mr Peter Obi, will no longer respond to attacks, insinuations, or provocations from political surrogates whose principals are themselves candidates for the 2027 presidential election but are either incapacitated or lack a record to defend.

A statement in Abuja on Monday from the Office lamented that: “These hired surrogates indulge in all kinds of fabrications to keep their principal’s name afloat, and they get elated when they think they have successfully gotten the candidate’s attention.

“A presidential election is a contest between the individuals whose names will appear on the ballot and who are asking Nigerians to entrust them with leadership of the country, not between candidates and their hired defenders.

“Our candidate, Mr Peter Obi, is a presidential contender. He stands by his words, defends his record, and is prepared to discuss his ideas openly with Nigerians to enable them to make a well-informed choice,” the Office said.

The statement went further to clarify that “those seeking to govern Nigeria should have the same courage.

“We challenge every presidential candidate hiding behind surrogates to step forward and speak for themselves. Defend your record. Explain your policies. Address the concerns Nigerians have. Debate your fellow candidates. Do not send proxies to fight battles you are unwilling or unable to face directly.

“It is politically convenient to employ surrogates to make reckless accusations, distort facts, and throw mud, while the candidate remains safely removed from the fallout. But Nigerians deserve better than remote-controlled presidential politics.

“Mr Peter Obi will not partake in that spectacle. From now on, surrogates are not our constituency of response. Candidates are. If a presidential candidate has an issue with Mr Obi, let that candidate speak directly.

“If there are policy disagreements, let the candidates debate openly. If there is a challenge to Mr Obi’s record, let the challenger present their own record as well.

“No more proxies. No more political ventriloquism. No more responses to individuals who are not on the ballot.”

According to the Office: “The 2027 election will not be decided by the loudest surrogate. It will be decided by Nigerians. And Nigerians deserve to hear directly from those seeking their votes.

“If your name is on the ballot, Peter Obi will engage with you. If you are not on the ballot, Peter Obi has no reason to engage with you. We are committed to the Nigerian people—listening to their suffering, respecting their aspirations, and focusing on the urgent task of rescuing our nation from the failures of leadership.

“The era of responding through surrogates is over. Let the candidates come forward. A New Nigeria is Possible but certainly not with surrogates,” the statement said.

Security operatives kill scores of bandits in Kebbi

Security operatives have killed scores of bandits and recovered arms, ammunition, motorcycles and other items during a joint clearance operation in Gumki Forest, Kangiwa Local Government Area of Kebbi State.

The operation, conducted by the Kebbi State Police Command in collaboration with the military, took place at about 6:05 a.m. on Monday, September 14, 2026.

According to a statement issued to journalists in Birnin Kebbi by the Police Public Relations Officer (PPRO), Bashir Usman, Gumki Forest is a known route used by bandits and Lakurawa elements.

He said the joint team engaged and neutralised bandits operating in the area during the operation.

Usman said the operatives recovered one PKT rifle with 174 rounds of live ammunition, one AK-47 rifle with 14 rounds of live ammunition, a pair of military camouflage uniforms, a pair of boots, two mobile phones, charms and four motorcycles.

He added that the area remained relatively calm, while joint operations were ongoing to further clear the forest and rid the state of criminal elements.

The Commissioner of Police, CP Umar M. Hadejia, commended the operatives for their gallantry and dedication to duty.

Hadejia reaffirmed the command’s commitment to sustaining coordinated and intelligence-led operations with other security agencies to counter banditry, terrorism and other forms of criminality in the state.

He also urged members of the public to continue providing timely and credible information to security agencies.

2027: Don’t use partisan lecturers as Returning Officers, ADC charges INEC

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has urged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to review its policy on the appointment of politically exposed academics as Returning and Collation Officers for the 2027 general elections.

The party’s demand followed a newspaper report that more than 600 senior lecturers from public universities across Northern Nigeria had endorsed President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for re-election in 2027.

The ADC said the reported endorsement raised questions about electoral credibility and potential conflicts of interest, particularly because university lecturers and vice chancellors have routinely been appointed by INEC to perform sensitive roles in the collation of election results and declaration of winners.

In a statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi on Monday, the party acknowledged the constitutional right of lecturers and other Nigerians to support or endorse political candidates of their choice.

However, it argued that academics who had publicly taken partisan positions should not subsequently be appointed to positions requiring neutrality in an election involving the candidate they had endorsed.

The party said the principle was straightforward: “You cannot campaign for a candidate and then be entrusted with counting the votes and declaring winners in the same election that your candidate is contesting in.”

The ADC consequently called on INEC to establish and publish clear criteria for selecting Returning and Collation Officers, including provisions that would exclude academics and other prospective election officials who had publicly endorsed candidates, participated in partisan political activities or demonstrated an obvious political affiliation.

The opposition party also asked the electoral commission to publish the names of proposed Returning and Collation Officers sufficiently ahead of the elections.

According to the ADC, such disclosure would enable political parties, candidates and members of the public to identify potential conflicts of interest and raise legitimate objections before the elections.

The party said the issue was particularly important because the credibility of an election depended not only on the voting process but also on the neutrality and integrity of officials responsible for collating and declaring results.

“The integrity of an election does not begin when the first ballot is cast. It begins with the neutrality of the people entrusted to administer, collate, and declare its outcome,” the party said.

It added that Nigerians should not be placed in a situation where individuals who had publicly chosen a political side were subsequently presented as neutral arbiters in the same electoral contest.

The ADC’s position comes as political parties and other stakeholders intensify preparations for the 2027 general elections, with concerns over the neutrality of electoral officials, transparency and public confidence expected to remain major issues.

While the reported endorsement by the lecturers does not, by itself, establish that any of them will be appointed as Returning or Collation Officers, the ADC said INEC should act proactively to prevent potential conflicts of interest.

The party maintained that clear eligibility and disclosure rules would help strengthen confidence in the electoral process and prevent avoidable disputes over the credibility of results.

It urged INEC to ensure that all officials appointed to sensitive electoral positions are not only professionally qualified but also demonstrably impartial in the contests in which they are required to administer or declare results. Authority.

Peter Obi reels out 10 strong points for his presidency, 10 failures of Tinubu

The Peter Obi Media Office has reacted to what it called “laughable argument of the surrogate campaigners of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu that the Nigeria Democratic Congress, NDC Presidential flagbearer, Peter Obi, is overhyped, and that his popularity and high rating are overrated.

The Office in a statement on Monday presented, “as a direct response, ten points to back up all the ratings Peter Obi is currently enjoying in the nation’s political space.

“The record that actually prepared him for the Presidency. And ten failures of Tinubu’s presidency that Nigerians cannot ignore.

_Peter Obi managed a state before seeking to manage a nation._

He served as Governor of Anambra State from 2006 to 2014, with interruptions arising from the political and legal battles surrounding his tenure. He eventually won re-election in 2010, completed his second term, and emerged as the best-performing state governor in his time.

_He demonstrated fiscal discipline._

As a public servant, one of the strongest claims in his governance record is that Anambra became one of the least-indebted states while he was governor, and his administration accumulated substantial savings and investments. His 2023 manifesto records approximately $500 million in investments and savings, including $156 million in dollar-denominated bonds.

_He showed that government could save rather than merely spend._

This is perhaps one of the clearest contrasts in his political message: leaving substantial financial reserves behind after leaving office. The record presented in his manifesto includes local and foreign currency savings and investments.

_He made education a central development investment._

His administration returned mission schools to their original owners and established partnerships with them. His manifesto says Anambra subsequently moved from 24th to first position in WAEC/NECO performance for three consecutive years.

_He invested in human capital rather than only physical projects._

The record includes scholarships, support for education, healthcare investments and poverty mapping—an approach consistent with the argument that development is ultimately about improving people’s productive capacity.

_He demonstrated healthcare investment._

His administration’s reported record includes investment in health institutions and accreditation; the 2023 manifesto states that more than 12 health institutions, including two hospitals, had secured accreditation by the end of his tenure, compared with none at the beginning.

_He attracted international development partnerships._

The record includes engagement with organisations such as the World Bank, UNDP, DFID and the European Union, alongside diplomatic engagement with foreign governments. His manifesto also says he was recognised by the Millennium Development Goals Office and UNDP for the implementation of development programmes.

_He used data and planning in governance._

His administration introduced poverty mapping and aerial mapping/planning initiatives, and developed the Anambra Integrated Development Strategy (ANIDS) as a framework for coordinated development.

_He demonstrated experience outside politics._

Before becoming governor, Obi had a career in business and banking, including senior roles in the financial sector. That gives his presidential case a combination of private-sector, financial-management and public-sector experience.

_He left office with a record that could be examined._

That may ultimately be the strongest argument: Nigerians do not have to assess Peter Obi solely from campaign promises. They can examine what he did with Anambra’s resources when he had executive responsibility.

Perhaps the bigger argument and the strongest political formulation is therefore that

Peter Obi is not asking Nigerians to make him President so that he can learn how government works. He is asking Nigerians to entrust him with Nigeria after demonstrating, as Governor of Anambra, how he manages money, builds institutions, invests in human capital and plans for the future.

*Tinubu Presidency: Ten Failures Nigerians Cannot Ignore”*

_Cost-of-living crisis_ — The removal of the petrol subsidy and other economic reforms have been accompanied by a severe rise in the cost of food, transportation and necessities.

_Inflation and declining purchasing power_ — Nigerians have seen their incomes buy substantially less, while wages have struggled to keep pace with prices.

_Naira instability_ — The sharp depreciation of the naira has increased the cost of imported goods, medicines, machinery and industrial inputs.

_Fuel-price shock_ — Petrol prices rose dramatically following subsidy reforms, placing additional pressure on households, businesses and transportation costs.

_Rising poverty and hardship_ — The central criticism is that the immediate burden of economic reforms has fallen disproportionately on ordinary Nigerians.

_Weak employment and economic opportunities_ — Despite repeated government assurances, many young Nigerians continue to face unemployment, underemployment and limited opportunities for productive work.

_Security challenges remain unresolved —_ Banditry, terrorism, kidnapping and communal violence continue to affect parts of the country, raising questions about the effectiveness of the government’s security strategy.

_Public trust and transparency concerns_ — Controversies surrounding government spending, appointments, procurement and the management of public resources have continued to generate questions about transparency and accountability.

_Perception of political rather than institutional governance_ — Critics argue that the administration has sometimes appeared more focused on political consolidation and 2027 calculations than on building strong, independent institutions.

_The gap between promises and lived experience_ — Perhaps the broadest criticism is that the administration’s reform narrative has not yet translated into a sufficiently visible improvement in the daily lives of ordinary Nigerians because of apparent corruption allegations all over the place.

The fundamental question is not whether Tinubu inherited a difficult Nigeria. He did. The question is whether, after taking difficult decisions, Nigerians are better off today—and whether the government has convincingly demonstrated that today’s sacrifice is producing tomorrow’s prosperity. Your answer is an obvious capital NO,” the statement concluded.

Killing Democracy without a Coup d’état

By Ike Abonyi

” Democracy dies when the opposition is silenced, leaving only the echo chamber of the ruling party” — Wole Soyinka

Alongside several other anti-democratic statements made by members of the ruling APC in Osun, Borno, and Yobe states, and the FCT, Tuesday’s obstruction of Peter Obi, the Presidential Candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), in Benue State by Governor Hayacinth Alia’s thugs, organised by his aide, demonstrates the ruling party’s deliberate effort to undermine democratic processes.
Following numerous military coups in Africa that brought democratically elected governments to an end, many people, including Nigerians, regard a coup d’état as the most significant means of destroying democracy. However, historical records indicate that democracy can be dismantled in numerous ways. Nigerians must therefore remain vigilant, because democracy can be destroyed without a coup, without soldiers taking to the streets, and without the Constitution being formally suspended. Democracy is not preserved solely by holding elections.
Democracy largely depends on citizens being free to make political choices without intimidation, coercion, threats, or fear of consequences for supporting an opposing candidate or party. Democracy can be hollowed out quietly through one threat, one intimidation, one abuse of power, one silenced opposition voice, and one frightened voter at a time. The most dangerous warning signs are therefore found not only in what political actors do but also in what they openly say, like those words that scare away voters from voting or piece them off, making them disinterested.
When political leaders or their supporters threaten voters, pressure public officials to produce electoral results, intimidate traditional institutions, or suggest that citizens should suffer personal consequences for refusing to support a particular party, Nigerians should not dismiss such language as ordinary campaign rhetoric. The ballot is supposed to be an instrument of freedom. The moment a citizen begins to fear what may happen to them for using it, democracy is already under pressure. This is the question Nigeria must confront: Are our politicians competing to win the confidence of citizens—or are some increasingly seeking to control the choices of citizens through fear, patronage, money, and political power?
That question is bigger than any political party. It is bigger than any candidate. It is a question about whether the Nigerian voter will remain the ultimate sovereign in the democratic process. Nigerians, therefore, should be deeply concerned when political language increasingly sounds less like persuasion and more like coercion. Such language exists when the government in power feels it has not done enough to win the heart of the people and decides to resort to intimidation and other undemocratic practices.
When a politician tells a woman to divorce her husband because he will not allow her to vote for a particular party; when a public official threatens traditional rulers with the loss of their positions for refusing to campaign; when elected officials are warned that their jobs depend on delivering votes; when voters are threatened with violence or told to leave their communities because they support the opposition—these are not merely colourful campaign statements. They raise a fundamental question about the future of democratic choice in Nigeria: Are citizens still being persuaded to vote, or are they being frightened into voting or staying away from voting? The distinction matters. Democracy is built on consent. Coercion is the opposite of consent. And when threats, patronage, state power, and overwhelming financial resources begin to converge around political competition, Nigerians must ask whether the playing field remains genuinely democratic—or whether politics is gradually becoming an exercise in controlling the voter rather than convincing the voter. “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks” is a biblical proverb that shows what you care about deeply will show up in how you talk. If your mind is full of good thoughts, your words are kind. If your mind is full of anger or hate, your words show it. Therefore, when political language repeatedly becomes a language of threats, Nigerians have every reason to ask what it says about the state of democracy and its operatives. Consider the growing pattern of reported political statements from the ruling APC chieftains across the country—from Abuja to Osun, Ebonyi, Borno, and Yobe states. Party chairmen telling women to divorce husbands who prevent them from voting for his party; a senator allegedly threatening violence against members of an opposition movement; a commissioner warning traditional rulers that they could lose their official recognition if they failed to campaign for the ruling party; a governor threatening local government chairmen with removal if they failed to deliver votes; and a local government chairman reportedly warning voters who oppose the ruling party to leave the area. Whether these statements were intended as political rhetoric, mobilisation, or intimidation, they deserve scrutiny because democracy cannot coexist comfortably with threats against citizens for exercising political choice. The danger increases when political authority is involved. A traditional ruler should not have to choose between his traditional institution and political neutrality. A local government chairman should not have to choose between retaining his position and respecting the independent choices of voters. And no citizen should have to calculate the personal consequences of voting for an opposition candidate.
Elections are supposed to be competitions for the consent of the governed—not exercises in demonstrating who can intimidate the governed most effectively. A ruling party should have the advantage of incumbency, showcasing their achievements to sway voters, not using their position to intimidate citizens. What such acts from the ruling party translate to is that they have nothing to show the people. Then comes the extraordinary role of money. When political campaigns are reportedly capable of spending hundreds of millions of naira on billboards and other forms of political visibility, another democratic question arises: are Nigerians choosing their leaders through competing ideas, or are increasingly powerful financial machines determining whose voice is heard? Money alone does not invalidate an election. Political parties are entitled to campaign and advertise. But excessive financial dominance, particularly when combined with political intimidation, can distort the level playing field that democracy requires. This is bigger than APC, PDP, Labour Party, ADC, NDC, or any other political platform. The principle must apply to everybody. A democracy that tolerates threats today because they favour one’s preferred party may discover tomorrow that the same instruments are being used against that party. Nigeria, therefore, needs to draw a clear line: campaign aggressively, persuade vigorously, mobilise extensively—but do not threaten citizens for exercising their constitutional choices. The ballot paper belongs to the voter. The choice belongs to the voter. The government belongs to the people. No party, politician, governor, senator, commissioner, traditional institution, or local government official should become more powerful than that fundamental democratic principle.
The greatest danger to democracy is not merely losing an election. It is creating an environment in which citizens become afraid to vote freely. And when fear begins to determine the ballot, an election may still take place—but democracy itself has already begun to lose.
The deeper issue, therefore, is not which party makes these statements or which candidate benefits from them. The issue is what kind of political culture Nigeria is creating ahead of 2027. A healthy democracy should make political persuasion more powerful than political intimidation; ideas more important than threats; citizens more important than political godfathers; and the ballot more powerful than the instruments of government. Political parties have every right to campaign vigorously and seek victory. But the democratic legitimacy of that victory ultimately depends on one simple principle: the voter must remain free. The real test of Nigeria’s democracy is not whether elections take place. It is whether Nigerians can participate in them without fear or intimidation.

The founding fathers of our current political landscape envisaged things like this and had them in the Electoral Act. Section 97(1) of the Electoral Act specifically prohibits political actors from threatening violence or using force to compel voter behaviour. When chieftains utter these threats openly during public rallies without immediate, visible legal consequences, coercion is elevated into a standard campaign strategy.
Rather than reprimand, what is seen is a perceived pretentiousness of institutional neutrality. The Electoral Commission, INEC, indulging in regulatory foot-dragging and positioning itself as a neutral administrator, shows hesitation to invoke its powers against political actors who violate campaign rules. When the commission treats blatant voter suppression tactics as mere “political rhetoric” rather than statutory infractions, its neutral posture appears performative. Ditto for the law enforcement agencies — the police and DSS — who engage in selective law enforcement despite Article 214 of the Constitution mandating a national police force to maintain law and order impartially. However, when the police quickly arrest opposition figures or youth for online commentary while ignoring explicit threats of voter disenfranchisement made by ruling-party stalwarts, the public perceives the force as an enforcement arm of the incumbent party, not of the citizensensens.
Nothing kills democracy more than acts that discourage voters from participating through intimidation, with the supposedly neutral law enforcement copiously demonstrating obvious bias. Nigeria — this is where we have brought our democratic journey to the point of destruction.
In conclusion, I present American renowned political scientist Frank Wilhoit who captured it pointedly that “The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.”
God help us.

Fr Alia’s unmistakable hypocrisy and the Church’s wisdom

By Ike Abonyi.

Governor Hyacinth Alia may not realise it, but his conduct in partisan politics is becoming one of the strongest arguments for the Catholic Church’s wisdom in keeping priests away from partisan political contests.While the impulse for a Catholic priest to enter politics often stems from a desire to address systemic corruption, bad governance, and social injustice, the Catholic Church maintains a strict position forbidding ordained ministers from holding public offices that involve the exercise of secular authority. This principle is anchored in Canon Law, Catholic Social Teaching, and the distinct roles assigned to the clergy versus the laity.The Code of Canon Law specifically addresses clerical involvement in secular governance: “Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of secular power.”Furthermore, Canon 287 §2 emphasises that clerics “are not to have an active part in political parties or in the direction of trade unions unless, according to the judgment of competent ecclesiastical authority, the protection of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good requires it.”When Father Hyacinth Alia declared his intention to contest the Benue State governorship under the platform of a political party, the Catholic Diocese of Gboko under his Lordship Bishop William Avenya suspended him from active priestly ministry. This suspension was not a punitive condemnation of his personal character, but an enforcement of canon law to preserve the integrity of the priesthood.The primary role of a Catholic priest is spiritual: to act in persona Christi (in the person of Christ), to administer the Sacraments, preach the Gospel, and unify the flock.In the Church’s wisdom, politics divides, while the Sacraments unite. Partisan politics is inherently competitive and divisive. A partisan candidate or elected official must adopt a party platform and oppose political adversaries. A priest who enters this arena risks alienating members of his congregation who hold different political views, thereby compromising his role as a spiritual father to all.When the Church stands outside partisan structures, it retains the moral authority to hold all political leaders accountable—regardless of party affiliation. Once a priest becomes an active politician, his actions and political compromises are conflated with the Church itself, risking institutional scandal and partisan bias.As a Catholic priest, Father Alia was called to serve all—the rich and the poor, the powerful and the powerless, the members of every political party. But as Governor Alia, he is inevitably a partisan political actor, operating within the interests and calculations of a political party.That is precisely the dilemma the Church has sought to avoid.Governor Alia’s political conduct has demonstrated how quickly the demands of partisan politics can overwhelm the temperament expected of the priesthood. Politics requires confrontation, political loyalty, the defence of one’s party, and sometimes an almost relentless battle against political opponents like the one he did against a fellow Catholic, Peter Obi, who is in the opposition party.The priesthood demands something fundamentally different: reconciliation, neutrality, compassion, and service to all.You cannot simultaneously be everybody’s pastor and somebody’s partisan warrior.Governor Alia’s transformation from priest to politician has therefore provided a rather uncomfortable demonstration of why the Church drew that line in the first place.The irony is striking: a man who once stood at the altar preaching unity, forgiveness, and love of neighbour now occupies a political office where his actions are inevitably judged through the lens of partisan power.And that is not necessarily a failure of the man. It is a warning about the institution of partisan politics itself.The Catholic Church understood that political power can change the context in which even a well-intentioned priest operates. Once political survival becomes part of the equation, neutrality becomes difficult, pastoral detachment becomes almost impossible, and opponents can easily become enemies.Governor Alia should therefore be careful about proving the Church right without intending to. His Lordship Bishop William Avenya, who suspended Fr Alia after he ignored his advice, will be feeling embarrassed, even though he saw Fr Alia’s mess in politics coming. Fr. Alia’s political career has become a real-life demonstration of the distinction between a priest who serves the conscience of the people and a politician who must compete for the allegiance of the people.The Church did not keep priests out of partisan politics because priests were incapable of leadership.It did so because it understood that the altar should not become an extension of the party platform—and the priest should not become a partisan combatant.Governor Alia’s journey from the altar to partisan politics has made that wisdom impossible to ignore.What Fr Alia has successfully done by his political conduct is to prove his Bishop and the Church right—that he ought not to have gone into partisan politics. Even though he is on suspension from Gboko Diocese, because a priest is a priest, especially of the Catholic Church, the embarrassment of his conduct is to the Church, his main spiritual family.The point needs to be stressed that the Church’s prohibition against priests entering partisan politics is not a retreat from societal issues but a preservation of sacred duty.While lay Catholics are tasked with directly managing secular governance and contesting elections, priests are called to remain above party politics—serving as universal shepherds whose moral authority remains uncompromised by the partisan fray.”

_Ike Abonyi is Editor @Large_

Ohanaeze youths to Tinubu: Release Nnamdi Kanu, end South-East grievances

The Ohanaeze Youth Council (OYC) Worldwide, the apex socio-cultural youth organisation of the Igbo race, has urged President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to urgently pursue a political solution to the lingering case involving the detained Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, and the Federal Government.

The OYC, under the leadership of Comrade Igboayaka O. Igboayaka, made the clarion call in a press statement issued in Owerri on Thursday and made available to newsmen, including The Authority.

Igboayaka said the alleged abduction, detention and prolonged incarceration of Kanu had remained a major source of grievance among the people of the South-East geopolitical zone.

He urged President Tinubu to demonstrate statesmanship by embracing dialogue and a political approach towards resolving the matter in the interest of peace, reconciliation and stability in the South-East and Nigeria at large.

Igboayaka recalled the circumstances surrounding the alleged abduction of the outlawed IPOB leader and his subsequent five-year incarceration by the Department of State Services (DSS) under the administration of the late President Muhammadu Buhari, describing the development as unwarranted.

According to him, the incident created deep resentment and a lasting sense of alienation among Igbo youths towards the late president.

“It will go down in the annals of history that the late President Muhammadu Buhari left office with deep-seated enmity from Ndigbo over the abduction and incarceration of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.”

He therefore passionately appealed to President Tinubu to avoid what he described as a repeat of tribal grievances against Easterners by releasing Kanu and other IPOB detainees currently held in police cells and correctional facilities across the country.

The OYC leader also accused the Federal Government of applying what he described as a double standard by allegedly negotiating with terrorists and kidnappers while simultaneously pursuing terrorism-related charges against Kanu, whom he described as a self-determination leader seeking a referendum.

He observed that a political solution to the Kanu matter could provide an important pathway towards national healing and reconciliation ahead of the 2027 general elections.

“One of the greatest pathways to national healing and reconciliation amid the current political climate is for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to adopt a political solution by releasing Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and all pro-Biafra detainees unconditionally before the next general election.”

Igboayaka further dismissed the capacity of some South-East political leaders who, according to him, have been promising President Tinubu electoral support in 2027.

He specifically mentioned Senator David Nweze Umahi, Prof. Charles Soludo, Dr. Peter Mbah, His Excellency Francis Nwifuru and Senator Hope Uzodimma, describing them as “jokers of this generation” who, he claimed, lacked the capacity, influence and acceptability to mobilise Ndigbo towards voting for the President.

“The only thing that can make Ndigbo consider voting massively for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in 2027 is the unconditional release of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and all pro-Biafrans in detention,” Igboayaka insisted. Authority.

Attack on Obi: Police counter Governor Alia’s story

The Benue State Police Command has punctured a key element of the state government’s response to the blockade of Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) presidential candidate Peter Obi’s convoy, confirming that the former Anambra State governor’s visit was known to the police and that officers were officially deployed to provide him security.

Commissioner of Police Cletus Nwadiogbu confirmed on Tuesday that the command provided security for Obi’s planned movement to Yelwata in Guma Local Government Area, where he intended to commiserate with victims of the June 13, 2025 massacre.

The police account contrasts sharply with suggestions by Governor Hyacinth Alia’s Chief Press Secretary, Tersoo Kula, who had questioned why relevant security authorities were allegedly not formally informed about Obi’s movement.

Kula had argued that a visit involving a presidential candidate would ordinarily require coordination with the Commissioner of Police and other security agencies.

But Nwadiogbu disclosed that the police were not only aware of the visit but had been informed of its purpose and assigned senior officers to provide security.

According to the commissioner, the command understood that Obi was not visiting Benue for political campaigning but to sympathise with victims of the Yelwata killings.

“Everybody has freedom of movement in Nigeria, so I provided security. I also directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police in charge of Operations to personally lead the men,” Nwadiogbu said.

His account also confirmed that Obi’s convoy was indeed blocked, amid questions raised by the governor’s spokesman about the circumstances surrounding the NDC candidate’s visit.

“Unfortunately, upon his arrival, we heard that the youths blocked the road and said they did not want to see him,” the police commissioner said.

Nwadiogbu said the command managed the immediate situation but had opened an investigation to establish why the youths prevented Obi from proceeding to Yelwata.

“We must get to the bottom of it and know why the youths said somebody cannot move freely,” he said.

The police are also investigating possible destruction associated with the incident, with Nwadiogbu promising to make the findings available when investigations are concluded.

The clarification adds a new dimension to the controversy surrounding Tuesday’s incident.

Obi’s media aide, Esther Umoh, had earlier alleged that suspected sponsored thugs blocked Boko Road near the Air Force Base to stop the presidential candidate from reaching his destination. Videos circulated from the scene showed individuals around the convoy, including some running after vehicles.

The identity and political affiliation, if any, of those involved have not been established.

The Alia administration denied involvement, with Kula suggesting that Obi might be attempting to drag the governor into an internal NDC political problem. He also questioned whether Obi had actually visited Makurdi and accused him of antecedents of making claims about Benue that the government considered untrue.

The police confirmation, however, establishes two significant facts disputed or questioned in the political exchanges: the command knew about Obi’s visit and provided him official security, and his convoy encountered a road blockade that prevented him from proceeding to Yelwata.

It does not, however, establish Obi’s camp’s allegation that the youths were sponsored or connect them to the Alia administration. That question is now part of the investigation.

Obi subsequently left Benue without completing the planned visit to Yelwata, where more than 200 people were reported killed in the June 2025 attack. GWG.END

How Benue youths fight the wrong battle—run from bandits, but fight harmless Peter Obi

Ike Abonyi.
What a tragic irony Nigeria has become: young men who run for their lives when bandits enter their villages suddenly discover courage when Peter Obi comes to mourn those the bandits have killed. When the killers arrived, they disappeared. When their people were being slaughtered and maimed, they fled. But when an unarmed presidential candidate came—not to campaign, not to fight, but to commiserate with grieving families—they were suddenly mobilised to become political thugs by a government headed by an ordained Catholic priest, Rev father Hyacinth Alia. What a shame. What exactly are we defending? And whom are we defending it against? If these young men had mobilised with the same determination against the bandits, perhaps some of the victims whose graves they now mourn would still be alive. If they had shown half the courage against insecurity that they displayed against a fellow Nigerian offering condolences, their communities might be safer today. This is the tragedy of political manipulation: a generation whose future is being stolen by insecurity is being recruited to protect the very political interests that have failed to secure that future.
Peter Obi did not come to challenge anybody’s authority. He came to stand with Nigerians in their darkest hour. He came because the dead were Nigerians, the wounded were Nigerians, and the grieving families were Nigerians.
Yet some youths were apparently made to believe that stopping him was more important than asking why their communities remain vulnerable to armed criminals. This is how politics destroys a people—when the victim begins to see the sympathiser as the enemy and the real enemy is allowed to remain invisible. Let our youths wake up. The bandit does not care whether you are APC, PDP, NDC, LP, Muslim or Christian. The bandit sees a vulnerable Nigerian. The bullet does not check your party membership before it kills. So why should a young Nigerian allow himself to be used against another Nigerian simply because of politics? If you have courage, use it to demand security.
If you have strength, use it to defend your community. If you have a voice, use it to demand accountability. And if you have a PVC, use it to choose leaders who will secure your future. Do not allow anyone to turn you into a political weapon today and leave you unemployed, insecure and abandoned tomorrow.
A governor who can mobilise youths for politics but cannot mobilise them to defend their people should be ashamed of himself. Nigeria’s youths must graduate from being foot soldiers for politicians to becoming owners of their political destiny. The real battle is not Peter Obi versus Nigerian youths. The real battle is Nigerians versus insecurity, poverty, corruption, unemployment, and the political culture that keeps exploiting young people while their future burns around them. And perhaps the most painful question of all is this: How can you run from the people who came to kill you but stand boldly before the person who came to mourn with you? That is not courage. That is a tragedy of misplaced loyalty.

_Ike Abonyi is Editor @Large._