By Dan Nwomeh
My people have a saying that when the wind blows, the chicken’s backside is exposed. The chicken’s feathers may look beautiful and well-groomed, but its backside is unsightly to behold. This is the disturbing revelation about a political movement that parades itself as the moral alternative to Nigeria’s established political order, preaching integrity, accountability and a new culture of leadership, yet engages in conduct that raises serious questions about its own commitment to truth, rules, contractual obligations and due process. Apparently, it is easier to preach morality than to practise it!
The controversy surrounding the NDC town hall at Amadeo Event Centre in Enugu offers a compelling illustration of this contradiction. The NDC raised an outcry against the Enugu State Government and Governor Peter Mbah, accusing them of ordering the cancellation of its planned meeting featuring its presidential candidate, Mr Peter Obi. The allegation triggered a barrage of social media attacks by irate Obidients against the governor. The party’s senatorial candidate, Mrs Ada Ogbu, also sensationally claimed in a video frenetically trended by the party’s social media propaganda machine that the NDC had paid for the venue, obtained receipts, and paid an additional punitive charge of ₦500,000 to secure it. Tellingly, however, she stopped short of tendering any of these receipts for public scrutiny. For a movement that never tires of demanding evidence and transparency from others, this conspicuous omission should have raised eyebrows.
Amadeo’s subsequent statement now tells a different story that reveals why Mrs Ogbu never released any of the receipts she so confidently invoked. From Amadeo’s disclosures, it has now emerged that the NDC never booked the facility or made any payment to it. Rather, the booking was made on October 7, 2026, by one Dr Sabastine Chuks Ezeh, Registrar of a likely fake NGO named the Nigeria Institute of Healthcare Givers and Medical Social Work Practitioners, purportedly for a “National Meeting and Conference”. The client subsequently submitted a written cancellation and refund request, withdrew it, and confirmed October 29 as the new date.
The dispute arose on October 28, when decoration materials were brought to the premises. To the consternation of the venue owner, the materials were for a political party, the NDC, contrary to the purpose stated in the booking agreement. This was when Amadeo’s management discovered that the facility was to be used for a purpose different from the one declared at the time of booking. Thus, the venue was deceitfully secured by the NDC through a proxy. Citing its terms and conditions, which permit management to stop activities that violate the agreement, Amadeo notified the client that permission to use the facility had been withdrawn because it did not permit partisan gatherings.
Amadeo disclosed further that NDC officials and candidates invaded its facility with armed security details, after which management allowed the town hall to proceed to forestall a breach of peace. It categorically denied any involvement by the Enugu State Government. One then wonders how a contractual disagreement between a venue owner and its client suddenly became the business of the Enugu State Government, with the governor immediately cast as the villain in a political persecution narrative.
These revelations raise several questions. What was the Enugu State Government’s business in a transaction that went awry between the two parties? Why did NDC operatives so quickly drag Governor Mbah’s name into a mess arising from their own dishonesty? Why were they so desperate to make Mbah the fall guy? Why the desperation to manufacture the stereotype of a governor who suppresses opposition voices and clamps down on political opponents?
If there is one thing the revelations from Amadeo suggest, it is that the organisers sought to secure the venue under a deceptive description and then use public pressure to compel management to accept its use for a political gathering. What is particularly troubling is the resort to social media outrage as a means of pressuring and bullying a private business into submission, even when the proposed use violated the contractual terms under which the facility was booked.
The hypocrisy is so glaring because Obi’s touted political appeal rests on promises of integrity, accountability, and doing things differently. The NDC and its supporters cannot demand transparency from government while resisting scrutiny of their own conduct. Nor can they preach respect for institutions while treating contractual rules as obstacles to be overcome through social media mobilisation. They cannot insist that the public must accept their false narratives, coordinated viral videos, and usual moral outrage. That is simply a double standard dressed up as moral crusading.
The real test of a movement’s moral credibility is whether it applies to itself the same standards of truth, accountability and fairness it demands from others. A movement that promises to rescue Nigeria must demonstrate that it will not reproduce the very culture of manipulation and abuse of power it claims to oppose.
The Amadeo controversy once again calls for a deeper interrogation of Obi’s political agenda, the excesses of his vulgar mob that he is never willing to call to order, his unilateral and self-serving eagerness to commit to a one-term presidency on behalf of Ndigbo, a position I questioned in an earlier article, and the overall political strategy behind his brand of opposition politics. Is this really the much-vaunted new political culture he promises Nigerians, or is it a familiar politics of grievance, victim mentality, emotional manipulation, public intimidation and the relentless search for villains?
Obi cannot continue to enjoy the political benefits of the outrage his supporters generate while remaining conspicuously silent when their conduct raises serious questions about decency, restraint and respect for other people’s rights. A leader who aspires to govern a country as complex as Nigeria must do more than cultivate a devoted following. He must demonstrate the courage to rein in their excesses; uphold the same standards he demands of others, and take responsibility for the toxic political culture he inspires.
