By Chris Uchenna Agbedo
Peter Obi, the former Labour Party presidential candidate, has often been hailed for his measured tone, integrity, and ability to strike a balance in the turbulent waters of Nigerian politics. However, his recent birthday tribute to former military Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon, has sparked a backlash, particularly from his supporters in the Southeast, many of whom feel a deep sense of betrayal. Obi’s message, celebrating Gowon’s legacy of “peace,” “unity,” and “sacrifice,” has been interpreted by his admirers as insensitive to the enduring scars of the Nigerian Civil War, particularly among Ndigbo who suffered immensely during the conflict.
The Biafran War, from 1967 to 1970, left over three million people dead, mostly from starvation, disease, and military atrocities. For many Ndigbo, Gowon’s role as the leader of the Nigerian forces during the war is inseparable from the policies that led to this devastation. The pain of that period remains fresh in the collective memory of the Igbo people, and the unresolved grievances from the war continue to shape political discourse in Nigeria. In light of this history, Obi’s glowing remarks about Gowon have been met with understandable outrage.
Several of Obi’s supporters took to social media, accusing him of “pandering” to the political elite and compromising the Igbo cause for his own presidential ambitions. One user expressed disappointment, saying, “As an Igbo person who deeply understands the pain and trauma inflicted on our people during the Biafran War, it is truly disheartening to read this message coming from Peter Obi, someone who should know better.” Another echoed this sentiment, describing the message as “tone-deaf” and a “betrayal.”
The criticisms leveled at Obi highlight a fundamental tension that he has faced throughout his political career – the delicate balance between being a national leader and remaining true to his Igbo roots. As a politician with presidential aspirations, Obi has worked hard to present himself as a unifying figure, capable of transcending ethnic and regional divides. His rhetoric has often emphasized the need for national unity, peace, and reconciliation, in contrast to the divisive politics that have long plagued Nigeria. However, in doing so, he risks alienating the very base that propelled him to national prominence, his supporters in the Southeast who look to him as a champion of Igbo interests.
The backlash against Obi’s message to Gowon also speaks to the unresolved trauma of the Biafran War. While Nigeria has officially moved on from the conflict, the lack of accountability, historical reckoning, and genuine reconciliation continues to haunt the nation. For many Igbos, the war is not a distant memory but a lived experience passed down through generations. Gowon’s leadership during the war is seen as a symbol of the suffering and marginalization of the Igbo people, and any attempt to celebrate his legacy without acknowledging this pain is likely to provoke strong reactions.
Peter Obi, as a politician, must navigate these complex emotions. His political rise has been marked by a careful balancing act, speaking to the needs of the Southeast while positioning himself as a national leader who can appeal to all Nigerians. His birthday message to Gowon, while perhaps intended as an olive branch in the spirit of national unity, has exposed the limits of this approach. For many of his supporters, particularly those who feel that the Igbo experience during the war has been overlooked or downplayed in national discourse, Obi’s words came across as a betrayal of their trust.
This controversy raises important questions about the nature of political leadership in Nigeria and the demands placed on those who aspire to national office. Can a politician truly represent the interests of a marginalized group while also appealing to the broader electorate? Is it possible to honour the legacies of figures like Gowon, who are celebrated in some parts of Nigeria and reviled in others, without alienating key constituencies? Obi’s critics would argue that his message to Gowon reflects a willingness to sacrifice his moral authority for political gain, a charge that may stick if not addressed carefully.
However, Obi’s supporters must also recognize the realities of Nigerian politics. To win the presidency, Obi must build alliances beyond the Southeast and present himself as a candidate who can unify a deeply fractured country. In a political environment where ethnic and regional loyalties often trump national interests, the pressure to strike a conciliatory tone is immense. Whether or not this strategy will pay off remains to be seen, but it is clear that Obi’s approach will continue to draw scrutiny from those who feel that the wounds of the past cannot be glossed over for the sake of political expediency.
In the end, Peter Obi’s tribute to Yakubu Gowon has sparked a necessary debate about how Nigeria remembers its past and how political leaders should navigate the complex terrain of historical memory. For many Igbos, the pain of the Biafran War is still raw, and any attempt to celebrate the architects of that conflict without acknowledging the suffering it caused will inevitably be met with resistance. Obi, in his quest for the presidency, must find a way to address these grievances while remaining true to his vision of a united Nigeria. It is a delicate balancing act, one that requires both sensitivity and political acumen.
While the seeming frustrations of Obi’s supporters with their hero’s ‘pandering’ to the political elite may be understandable within the context of Gen Gowon’s 90th birthday comment, this is hardly the case with the response of one Omokri, which tends to oscillate between misguided critique and a valid concern. In response to Obi’s portrayal of Gowon as an “enemy to be forgiven” and the labeling of his wartime actions as “acts of evil,” Omokri, a self-confessed rabble-rouser and ‘politics of stomach infrastructure’ posed a question: Can a man who views the preservation of Nigeria’s unity as an evil act be trusted to lead a united Nigeria?
Omokri’s reaction touches on the broader question of national unity and the delicate task of managing Nigeria’s fraught history, particularly the role of Gowon in the Nigeria-Biafra Civil War. Gowon’s legacy, as the leader who led Nigeria through one of its darkest periods, is complex, heroic to some, but deeply painful to others, especially Ndigbo, who bore the brunt of the war’s devastation. For Omokri, Obi’s comments seem to undermine the very notion of Nigerian unity. But was Obi truly undermining the unity of the nation, or was he attempting to grapple with the moral weight of that conflict?
Central to Omokri’s critique is the idea that questioning Gowon’s role in the war amounts to questioning the legitimacy of Nigeria’s continued existence as a united country. Yet, this stance ignores the deeper issue: acknowledging the pain caused by the war does not necessarily equate to rejecting the unity of Nigeria. What Obi seems to have tried to articulate is the need for reconciliation, healing, and a moral reckoning with the atrocities committed during that period. Omokri’s argument conflates criticism of Gowon’s actions during the war with an outright rejection of Nigerian unity.
It presumes that questioning the morality of the war automatically places one in opposition to the existence of a unified Nigeria. This is a false dichotomy. One can be critical of the methods used to preserve Nigeria’s unity without rejecting the idea of a united Nigeria itself. The issue is not so much about whether Nigeria should remain one nation, but about how that unity has been and continues to be pursued, particularly at the cost of human lives and suffering.
Peter Obi’s comments, while contentious, were likely an attempt to speak truth to a painful chapter in Nigeria’s history. Describing Gowon as an “enemy to be forgiven” may sound provocative, but it could be interpreted as a call for genuine reconciliation, a call to address the unresolved pain of the civil war, rather than sweeping it under the rug in the name of unity. Obi’s comments about “acts of evil” were likely directed at the war’s human cost, the deaths, the suffering, and the starvation of millions, particularly in Eastern Nigeria. He is, in essence, calling for a moral reckoning, not just a political one. Omokri’s defence of Gowon as someone who “fought to preserve Nigeria’s unity” does not account for the moral complexity of that war. Yes, Gowon fought to keep Nigeria together, but at what cost? The war was not just a military conflict; it was a humanitarian disaster that left deep scars on the Igbo people and on the country as a whole. Failing to acknowledge this complexity does a disservice to the conversation about Nigeria’s future as a truly unified nation.
What Omokri also overlooks is that the wounds of the civil war have not healed. For many in the Southeast, the war is not just a historical event, it is a lived reality that continues to shape their relationship with the Nigerian state. If Nigerian unity is to be meaningful, it cannot simply be imposed by force or through political rhetoric. It must be built on a foundation of justice, reconciliation, and a willingness to confront the painful truths of the past. This, to one’s mind, is what Obi was trying to convey in his comments about Gowon.
Omokri’s question, whether Nigeria’s unity is safe in the hands of someone like Peter Obi, misses the point. The real question is whether Nigerian unity can endure without addressing the historical grievances that continue to divide the country. Obi’s remarks, though controversial, may reflect a desire to build a more just and inclusive Nigeria, one that does not shy away from difficult truths but seeks to heal and move forward together. In essence, Omokri’s critique, while raising valid concerns about the language of unity, fails to engage with the deeper moral and historical issues at play. Peter Obi’s comments about Gowon are not a rejection of Nigerian unity but a call for a more honest reckoning with the past. If Nigeria is to remain united, it must do so not by denying or erasing its painful history, but by confronting it and building a future where all its people, regardless of their region or ethnicity, can feel that they are truly part of one nation.
Surely, the backlash from both Mr. Obi’s supporters and critics over his message to Gowon serves as a reminder that, in Nigeria, history is never far from the present, and the scars of the past continue to shape the politics of today. Whether Peter Obi can navigate these waters without losing the support of his base remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the journey to Aso Rock is fraught with challenges, and the road to national unity is long and winding.
In the midst of the passionate debates and political discourse surrounding Peter Obi’s birthday greetings, one thing remains clear: his love and passion for Nigeria are beyond dispute. Regardless of where one stands, whether as a fervent supporter or as a critic, it is difficult to deny Obi’s commitment to the well-being and future of Nigeria. His political career, public statements, and overall vision are all anchored in his desire to see a united, prosperous Nigeria.
To fully appreciate Obi’s stance, it is essential to understand the unique position he occupies in Nigeria’s political landscape. As a key figure from the Southeast, a region with historical grievances against the Nigerian state, Obi walks a tightrope. His message must be one that speaks to the pain of his people, while also promoting unity and a shared national identity. It is a difficult balance to strike, and it is perhaps this tension that has led to some of the misunderstandings surrounding his recent statements.
It is easy in the heat of political campaigns and social media debates to forget the larger context of a leader’s vision. Peter Obi’s love for Nigeria goes beyond the slogans and rhetoric of politics. It is reflected in his policy proposals, his commitment to good governance, and his consistent advocacy for the youth and marginalized groups. His call for economic reforms, infrastructural development, and a merit-based system shows a leader who is deeply invested in building a Nigeria that works for everyone, not just a select few.
In conclusion, while Peter Obi may not always be perfect; no leader is, but his love and passion for Nigeria are undeniable. Both his supporters and critics must recognize that at the heart of his political journey is a desire to see Nigeria flourish. His critics may question his methods, but they cannot question his motives. Nigeria needs leaders who not only understand its challenges but are also willing to fight for a better future. Peter Obi is such a leader, and his vision for Nigeria deserves to be seen in the light of his deep and abiding love for the nation.
- AGBEDO, a Professor of Sociolinguistics, University of Nigeria Nsukka & Public Affairs Analyst, writes from Nsukka
