A netizen just stirred social media with what he described as a blunt opinion: that Peter Obi cannot become president now, or that no Igbo man can, because of how Northerners allegedly perceive the Igbo. He further attributed this impossibility to what he called the aggressive and insulting posture of Obidients toward Northerners. His remarks were followed by a categorical dismissal of any potential Obi–Kwankwaso alliance, which he declared “dead on arrival,” complete with a tone of finality that sounded more like condolence than analysis.
Unsurprisingly, the comments attracted fierce backlash. Even Igbo members of the APC joined in condemning what they considered an offensive, disrespectful, and unnecessarily abrasive intervention. While I conceded that the intention might have been rooted in realism or hard truth, many felt the tone betrayed contempt rather than insight.
As a Northerner, parts of the commentary made me uncomfortable, not merely because of its harshness, but because of its potential to deepen misunderstanding and division. Earlier, I responded out of patriotism and fairness, making it clear that I do not share the sentiment being attributed to Northerners: that they are inherently unwilling or incapable of voting for an Igbo president because of IPOB, historical fault lines, the Biafra narrative, or the perceived aggressiveness of Obidients. I now wish to offer an alternative perspective and interrogate some of the assumptions embedded in that opinion.
Several things simply do not add up. First, the commenter later attempted to clarify his position by arguing that what the Igbo need is alliance-building rather than confrontation, but then went on to conclude that this generation of Igbo leaders is incapable of such maturity, hence his assertion that neither Peter Obi nor any Igbo can become president “in this generation.” This clarification only deepened the contradiction.
The first flaw lies in dismissing any possibility of an Obi–Kwankwaso or broader North–South alliance while simultaneously insisting that alliance-building is precisely what the Igbo require to access the presidency. This emotional inconsistency shifts blame onto one group without acknowledging the cynicism, intolerance, lack of empathy, or unwillingness to compromise that may also exist on the other side. These are often personal and elite-driven failures, not collective ethnic flaws.
The second weakness in the argument is the claim that Peter Obi is incapable of accepting a vice-presidential slot under a Northern candidate. This judgment is both speculative and superficial. It quietly normalizes a sense of entitlement on one side while portraying the other as unreasonable, without acknowledging that Northern political elites themselves are often unwilling to make concessions, not because their people demand it, but because personal ambition overrides collective interest.
In truth, this debate is not fundamentally about what Northerners think of the Igbo, nor about a South-East trust deficit. Northern contenders can, on their own, decide to make concessions in pursuit of a higher national goal without seeking validation from the masses. Reducing Peter Obi’s political future to a vice-presidential destiny ignores the possibility of elite consensus, zoning arrangements, or negotiated coalitions. In many professional associations, such as the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Nigerian Medical Association (NMA), and Pharmaceutical Society of Nigeria (PSN), among others, leadership rotates between North and South without resistance because elites agree. That such arrangements work elsewhere exposes the flaw in arguing that Igbo exclusion is driven mainly by Northern prejudice or Obidient behavior.
Another troubling assumption is the claim that IPOB and Obidient activism make an Igbo presidency impossible. This conveniently overlooks the fact that Northern politics has hardly been free of violent extremism or intolerance. Banditry and Boko Haram insurgency, both rooted in the North, are not morally superior to IPOB’s excesses. Nor were Buhari’s supporters before and after 2015 models of restraint. The 2011 post-election violence and the hostile political environment in parts of the North did not prevent a Northerner from becoming president. If those realities did not disqualify Northern leadership, it is intellectually dishonest to argue that Obidients alone disqualify an Igbo candidate.
The same selective logic appears in the argument about secessionist threats. IPOB is cited as evidence that the Igbo cannot be trusted with national leadership, yet similar separatist sentiments have existed in the South-West. Sunday Igboho is a prominent Yoruba separatist, and President Tinubu himself was once quoted as expressing doubts about the idea of “one Nigeria.” If secessionist rhetoric did not prevent a Yoruba man from becoming president, it cannot logically be used to permanently bar an Igbo aspirant.
It is also worth recalling that the Buhari–Tinubu alliance was not a North-versus-South movement reflecting popular consensus. Many Southerners opposed it, just as many Northerners did. It succeeded because two powerful elites struck a deal and presented the electorate with limited options. Politics often works that way. If elites such as Atiku, El-Rufai, Kwankwaso, and Peter Obi were to agree on a formula, perhaps even zoning that recognizes the South-East’s long-standing exclusion, nothing structural would prevent an Igbo presidency.
Curiously, the same commentator who dismisses zoning as incapable of producing an Igbo president confidently predicts that power must return to the North after Tinubu in 2031, invoking zoning as justification. This selective belief reveals a double standard. Zoning is not constitutional, yet it is embraced when convenient and discarded when it threatens a preferred narrative.
There is also a failure to appreciate that politics is fluid. Negotiation, compromise, and shifting alliances respond to public sentiment, necessity, and pressure. By ignoring the massive goodwill Peter Obi commands nationwide, the commenter underestimates his value to any serious coalition seeking to challenge the APC. It is contradictory to accuse Northerners of being incapable of trust while simultaneously demanding unquestioned trust and concessions from others, namely, reserving the presidency for the North and offering Obi a subordinate role. If an alliance between Obi, Kwankwaso, and Atiku were to fail, it would not be because Northerners objected or because Obidients are flawed, but because rigidity prevailed on all sides.
As things stand, Peter Obi has already demonstrated that an Igbo man can be a viable presidential contender in the near future. Yes, his supporters must cultivate more positive emotion, tolerance, and restraint. But this responsibility cannot be one-sided. Northerners who cling to cynicism, myth-making, and rigid conservatism are no better.
Finally, while the commenter may have raised issues worthy of reflection, his delivery undermined his message. Opinion loses its power when it is expressed with contempt, dismissal, or a tone of moral superiority. Communication that disregards sensitivity invites misunderstanding and hostility, even when motivated by genuine concern. In that sense, he is no better than the Obidients he disparages. The myth he advances about Igbo presidency, cloaked in realism, ultimately collapses under the weight of its contradictions.
Bagudu can be reached at bagudumohammed15197@gmail.com or on 0703 494 3575.
