Connect with us

Anthony Obi Ogbo

Peter Obi’s “holier than thou” campaign tactic is self-dramatizing folly, not a strategy

Published

4 years ago

on

Currently, he is merely romancing party cliques and showcasing his self-canonized sainthood.

All over his campaign literature and everywhere on social media, a Nigerian upcoming presidential aspirant, Peter Obi, has been touting his moderate lifestyle and honest decision-making aptitude as qualifications for his candidacy. Most Nigerians, especially his supporters, are very excited and are beginning to worship these values as a devotional creed.

The first promotional story to showcase Obi’s moderate lifestyle came in 2017, shortly after his tenure as the governor of Anambra state when he claimed that he had only one wristwatch, which he wore for 17 years. Obi, who was speaking at an event in Lagos, also claimed that he had two pairs of black shoes that he traveled with always. According to Obi, “The purpose of the shoe is to protect the leg from being hurt. Nothing else.” He further gestured, “The purpose of a watch is to keep time. Why would I keep a watch at home? Whose time is it keeping?”

Since then, Obi and his camp have been feeding the voting block with various “holier than thou” tales to distinguish him from his corrupt political colleagues and exonerate him from a system inundated with the highest levels of corruption. To promote the narrative of Obi’s humble and altruistic approach to economic matters, his camp tells of how he would choose a motel over a five-star hotel; how he would fly in economy over business class; and funnier still, how he would go for dinner at a filthy roadside bukateria instead of an expensive restaurant.

As I write, Obi’s camp is busy on social media telling and tagging more self-indulgent stories about his immaculate personality. Just recently, his enthusiasts floated the news on social media that his daughter got married without media ads, private jets, and money-spraying fanfares!

Major questions remain—what is his actual agenda for fixing a completely broken nation?

We must not forget that most Nigerians once embraced a presidential candidate, Muhammadu Buhari, over similar gestures. His social media warriors fed disappointed masses with some worthless cock-and-bull tales about his moral civility and presented him as a fiscally astute conservative who would curb corruption and appropriately manage the country’s economic and financial resources.

Remember when the APC claimed President Buhari’s predecessor, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, presented a billion-naira budget for delegates’ lunch, for which Buhari the “good money-manager” declined any expenses, saying that his transition team would bring their own lunch? Or how, during his trip to South Africa, Buhari paid the hotel bills for his staff and asked the rest of the entourage to pay their bills?

As humans, or perhaps as leaders, we should not regard an ethical lifestyle as an achievement worthy of reward or an Oscar, because ethical behavior ought to be expected. It is news only when individuals lack morality in their capacity to lead.

Please do not get me wrong. Leadership and behavior cannot be separated. Behavioral values, as related to one’s traits and comportment, can augment the basis for leadership effectiveness. In fact, at a fundamental level, there are five factors of transformational leadership, namely: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, which are all tied to leaders’ habits. In other words, it takes a moral leader to successfully lead a moral society.

However, in political governance, situational and contingency challenges play a major role in transformational success; both approaches focus on situations, and both concepts hold different expectations of leaders. In the situational approach, the leader should adapt to the prevailing situation, whereas the contingency concept requires the right leader to match the right situation.

Frankly, looking through decades of corruption in all sectors of Nigerian politics, there are no innocent elected politicians. At this moment in Nigeria’s political history, prospective candidates could focus on prevailing situational and contingency challenges rather than their moral propensities.

Getting there might require specific strategies and competencies completely different from his current self-aggrandizing, “saintly” approach.

Obi is a smart candidate—a compassionate conservative moderate who could adjust to any situational and contingency demands to deliver transformational excellence. He could lead Nigeria more effectively if given a chance. Those are his strengths. However, getting there might require specific strategies and competencies completely different from his current self-aggrandizing, “saintly” approach.

His weaknesses could pose an insurmountable obstacle. Initially, he projected himself as a tribal leader during and shortly after his governorship tenure, and that may come back to haunt him. For example, his handling of the deportation of Igbos around 2013 by the Lagos State government, led by Babatunde Fashola, backfired after he was said to have referred to Lagos as “no man’s land.” Without a doubt, the deportation of 72 allegedly destitute Igbos to Onitsha was a bad move.

Even as Governor Fashola acknowledged this and offered an unreserved apology for the confusion that preceded his actions, most politicians in the southwest took advantage of the situation to attack Obi’s relationship with this region. Femi Fani-Kayode, a former federal minister and politician, wrote: “The claim that the Igbo helped to develop Lagos is hogwash. The major institutions of the southwest were developed by the diligence, hard work, industry, and sweat of the Yoruba people. This is a historical fact.”

The All Progressives Congress (APC) also accused Obi of “threatening the unity of the country” by “playing politics with the deportation”. Others projected Obi as a hypocrite because, equally, he deported citizens to Akwa-Ibom and Ebonyi States in 2011 from his state, Anambra.

Another impediment that could weaken Obi’s candidacy may be connected with the revelation of his secret international business dealings through the Pandora Papers project. Obi became a familiar figure to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission after an investigation revealed that he had several secret business dealings and relationships including some he clandestinely set up and operated overseas, including notorious tax and secrecy havens that breached Nigerian law.

Obi’s electability might also depend on how Igbo politicians can mobilize their region in the ongoing registration exercise. Eligible Igbo voters are just not registering, and this could pose a damaging threat to any Igbo candidate. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), attributed the low turnout of eligible voters to insecurity and fear. It may also be attributed to the damaging effects of the Indigenous People of Biafra’s (IPOB) frequent acts of violence in enforcing the sit-at-home order.

To further threaten his chances of becoming president, the devastating demonstrations, violent threats, and demands of some pro-separatist ethnic Igbos, especially the IPOB, have provoked fears among the northern region, who are least likely to support any Igbo President en masse.

Looking across the electoral map, Obi would need more support from people in the northern and western regions, who have better voting numbers and are more politically involved than his Igbo kinsmen, who are currently saddled with both low registration and participation. Currently, the No-Biafra-No-Election mantra is still trending.

To persevere in his quest for the presidency, Obi must exhibit a good knowledge of the political environment encompassing both the regional stakeholders and all the geopolitical zones. The “holier than thou” campaign tactic is a self-aggrandizing exercise in idiocy, not a strategy. Currently, he is merely romancing party cliques and showcasing his self-canonized sainthood.

He could still turn things around by presenting his core cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal competencies as strategies to attract trust from non-Igbo party stakeholders and voters.

Yet, there are still issues: his challenges transcend the current amplification of his choice of shoes, watches, motels, or restaurants. Strategies must focus on addressing the aforementioned challenges. How will he mobilize his people to register? How does he intend to win the trust of regions currently skeptical about electing an Igbo president? How will he explain his past transgressions? How does his proclaimed moderate lifestyle dovetail with his several secret business dealings revealed through the Pandora Papers project? #

♦Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D. is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015)  and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Anthony Obi Ogbo

From Threats to Partnership: How Diplomacy Repositioned Nigeria in Washington

Published

2 weeks ago

on

January 13, 2026

By

“Nigeria reframed terrorism, corrected Washington’s lens, and secured cooperation —a  pure anatomy of diplomatic turnaround“ —Anthony Obi Ogbo

Nigeria’s recent engagement of a United States–based lobbying firm under a reported $9 million contract was widely scrutinized, predictably misunderstood by some, and quietly effective. The objective was clear: to shape Washington’s understanding of Nigeria’s complex security challenges—particularly violence affecting Christian communities—within an accurate geopolitical, intelligence, and regional framework. Such engagements are not unusual. In fact, they are a routine and essential feature of modern international diplomacy, allowing governments to clarify policy positions, counter distorted narratives, and ensure that domestic security crises are not flattened into simplistic talking points for foreign consumption.

In an era where global perception can influence aid, sanctions, military cooperation, and diplomatic goodwill, strategic communication has become inseparable from national security. Nigeria’s decision to professionally engage Washington signaled an understanding that security today is fought not only on the battlefield but also in briefing rooms, policy memos, and diplomatic corridors.

Evidence suggests that this recalibration has begun to yield results. Just days ago, former U.S. President Donald Trump publicly acknowledged—belatedly—that Muslims are equally among the primary victims of ISIS terrorism. It was a striking rhetorical shift for a political figure who had long leaned on broad, inflammatory framing that blurred the distinction between extremist violence and religious identity. That admission did not emerge in a vacuum. It followed sustained pressure from global security analysts, regional experts, and Muslim leaders who have repeatedly challenged the false narrative that terrorism is rooted in faith rather than criminal ideology, geopolitical instability, and organized violence.

More importantly, the acknowledgment coincided with tangible policy movement. Trump-aligned U.S. security networks have quietly expanded counterterrorism cooperation with Nigeria under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration. This development underscores a pragmatic recognition that effective counterterrorism is not achieved through threats, isolation, or performative rhetoric, but through partnership, intelligence sharing, and regional capacity building.

This week, the United States delivered fresh military supplies to Nigeria to support ongoing security operations. The delivery followed recent U.S. air strikes against Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) targets, carried out at Nigeria’s formal request. While air strikes often attract public attention, the more consequential story lies beneath the surface: a shift toward coordinated intelligence operations, logistical support, and sustained military collaboration. This is not symbolic diplomacy. It is functional, operational alignment.

Contrast this moment with an earlier chapter in Nigeria–U.S. relations. During the Jonathan administration, Nigeria experienced significant difficulties in its diplomatic engagement with Washington. Rather than relying on seasoned foreign policy professionals, security strategists, and international communications experts, the government leaned heavily on local intermediaries and political loyalists to interpret and convey Nigeria’s position abroad. The result was a weakened diplomatic posture, fragmented messaging, and persistent misinterpretation of Nigeria’s internal security realities. Critical issues—ranging from Boko Haram’s evolution to regional insurgency dynamics—were often viewed through incomplete or distorted lenses.

That experience offered a lasting lesson: goodwill alone does not translate into influence. In global politics, perception must be managed as deliberately as policy. Strategic silence, amateur diplomacy, or reactive communication leaves a vacuum—one that is quickly filled by external narratives, advocacy groups, or political opportunists with their own agendas.

What has changed now is not merely tone, but method. Nigeria’s current approach reflects an understanding that diplomacy is not capitulation, and lobbying is not a sign of weakness. It is leverage. It is preparation. It is the disciplined articulation of national interest in a language that global power centers understand. By engaging professionally, Nigeria reframed its security narrative—not as a sectarian failure, but as a shared counterterrorism challenge that requires international coordination.

Even Donald Trump’s posture illustrates this transformation. A leader who once relied on threats, ultimatums, and rhetorical spectacle has now, through institutional channels, become part of a support framework working with regional actors to strengthen security and civilian protection. The shift is not ideological; it is a strategic move. And it reflects the enduring truth that diplomacy often succeeds where bluster fails.

In international politics, power is not only measured by firepower or economic weight, but by the ability to persuade, align, and sustain cooperation. Nigeria’s recent experience is a reminder that nations are not judged solely by their crises, but by how effectively they explain, manage, and confront them on the global stage. Diplomacy, when practiced with clarity and professionalism, does not dilute sovereignty—it reinforces it.

♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015)  and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Anthony Obi Ogbo

When Air Power Becomes a Christmas Performance: The Illusion of Success in Trump’s Nigerian Strike

Published

1 month ago

on

December 28, 2025

By

“Bombs alone do not defeat ideology. Precision without intelligence is noise.“ —Anthony Obi Ogbo

When President Trump announced his authorized United States air strike against ISIL (ISIS) fighters in northwest Nigeria on Christmas Day, there was an immediate burst of celebration on Nigerian social media. For a country exhausted by years of kidnappings, massacres, and territorial insecurity, the announcement sounded like long-awaited international support. Memes circulated, praise poured in, and some Nigerians hailed Trump as a decisive global sheriff finally willing to act where others hesitated.

But after the initial euphoria settled, a sobering assessment emerged: the strike appeared less like a strategic military intervention and more like a made-for-television spectacle designed to burnish Trump’s international strongman image.

This was not the first time the United States has launched air strikes in Africa or the Sahel under the banner of counterterrorism. From Libya to Somalia, from Syria to Yemen, U.S. “precision strikes” have often been announced with confidence and celebrated with press briefings—only for the targeted groups to regroup, mutate, and, in some cases, expand their reach. In Nigeria itself, years of foreign-backed security assistance have failed to decisively neutralize Boko Haram or its ISIS-affiliated offshoots. Instead, violence has fragmented, spread, and grown more complex.

No verifiable evidence has been produced to confirm high-value ISIS targets were eliminated

The Nigerian strike followed a familiar pattern. U.S. officials framed it as a blow against ISIS-West Africa Province (ISWAP), a group aligned with the global ISIS network. Trump’s language suggested a decisive intervention—an act of muscular diplomacy signaling that America still projects power where it chooses. Yet no verifiable evidence has been produced to confirm high-value ISIS targets were eliminated, leadership structures dismantled, or operational capacity degraded.

What followed was a digital smokescreen. Social media accounts, many anonymous and unverified, began circulating gruesome images of dead bodies and destroyed villages—photos long associated with banditry in Nigeria’s northwest. These images were quickly repurposed to “prove” the success of Trump’s strike. However, this is where the narrative falls apart under scrutiny.

Trump’s mission, as publicly stated, was to target ISIS. Not bandits. Not kidnappers. Not rural criminal gangs. ISIS is a transnational terrorist organization with ideological, financial, and operational links across continents. Bandits, by contrast, are primarily armed criminal groups—motivated by ransom, cattle theft, and territorial control, not global jihad. Conflating the two may be politically convenient, but it is analytically dishonest.

Killing or displacing bandits does not equate to dismantling ISIS. In fact, indiscriminate or poorly targeted air strikes often worsen the situation, pushing criminal groups to radicalize, splinter, or align with extremist factions for protection and legitimacy. This pattern has been observed repeatedly in conflict zones where military force substitutes for intelligence-driven strategy.

A truly successful counterterrorism raid is not measured by dramatic announcements or viral images. It is measured by clear, verifiable outcomes, including the confirmed elimination of high-ranking commanders, disruption of recruitment and financing networks, seizure of weapons caches, and—most importantly—sustained reductions in civilian attacks. None of these benchmarks has been credibly demonstrated in the aftermath of Trump’s Nigerian air strike.

Instead, Nigeria wakes up to the same grim reality: villages remain vulnerable, highways unsafe, and communities terrorized. The strike did not change the security equation. It did not empower Nigerian forces. It did not restore civilian confidence. And it certainly did not neutralize ISIS as a strategic threat.

This air strike offered Nigerians symbolism, not security.

In that sense, the air strike was not merely ineffective—it was a failure dressed in the language of strength, executed for optics, and amplified for political gain. It offered Nigerians symbolism, not security.

If the goal is truly to eliminate ISIS and its affiliates in West Africa, the path is neither theatrical nor unilateral. It requires robust intelligence sharing, sustained training, and real-time coordination with Nigerian and regional forces. It demands targeted arms assistance, logistical support, and investments in surveillance capabilities that allow local militaries to act decisively and lawfully. Above all, it requires a long-term commitment to strengthening state capacity—not fleeting air shows announced from afar.

Bombs alone do not defeat ideology. Precision without intelligence is noise. And celebration without results is self-deception. Trump’s Nigerian air strike may have produced headlines, but history will remember it for what it was: a failed mission masquerading as success.

♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015)  and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Anthony Obi Ogbo

Trump’s Nigeria Strike: Bombs, Boasts, and the Illusion of Victory

Published

1 month ago

on

December 26, 2025

By

“With Obama, Al-Qaeda was not eliminated by noise; it was suffocated by intelligence.“ —Anthony Obi Ogbo

It has now been confirmed that the United States acted in collaboration with Nigeria in the recent strike on Islamic State elements in northwest Nigeria. That cooperation deserves recognition. Intelligence-sharing between Washington and Abuja is necessary, overdue, and welcome. Terrorism is transnational; defeating it requires allies, not isolation.

But let us be clear: bombs alone do not defeat terror. And Donald Trump’s strike—trumpeted loudly on social media before facts, casualties, or strategy were disclosed—was less a turning point than a performance.

Trump’s announcement was a classic spectacle: “powerful,” “deadly,” “perfect strikes.” No numbers. No clarity. No accountability. Just noise. It was the same choreography America has deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia—places where U.S. airpower landed hard, headlines screamed victory, and instability deepened afterward. Violence escalated. Militancy adapted. Civilians paid the price.

History is unkind to airstrikes sold as solutions.

Nigeria knows this better than anyone. Long before Trump’s tweet, the Nigerian military had already conducted multiple operations in the same terror corridor. At least five major strikes and offensives stand out:

  • First, Operation Hadarin Daji, launched to dismantle bandit and terror camps across Zamfara, Katsina, and Sokoto, involving sustained air and ground assaults.
  • Second, Operation Tsaftan Daji, which targeted terrorist hideouts in the Kamuku and Sububu forests—precisely the terrain now in the headlines.
  • Third, repeated Nigerian Air Force precision strikes in the Zurmi–Shinkafi axis, neutralizing commanders and destroying logistics hubs.
  • Fourth, joint operations with Nigerien forces, disrupting cross-border supply routes used by ISIS-linked groups.
  • Fifth, recent coordinated offensives involving intelligence-led raids, special forces insertions, and follow-up ground clearing in the northwest.

These were not symbolic gestures. They were Nigerian-led, Nigerian-funded, Nigerian-executed. And yet, there were no fireworks on social media. No flag-waving hysteria. No intoxicated praise of Nigerian commanders as saviors of civilization.

Why? Because there is a dangerous segment of Nigerians who suffer from what can only be called the American Wonder mentality—a colonial hangover that applauds anything louder simply because it comes from Washington. The same Nigerians who ignore their own soldiers dying in silence suddenly abandon Christmas meals to celebrate Trump’s tweets, typing incoherent praise, mangling grammar, and mistaking spectacle for substance.

It is embarrassing. And it is intellectually lazy.

Terrorism is not defeated by volume or virality. It is defeated by intelligence—quiet, patient, unglamorous work. The United States knows this. Barack Obama understood it. Al-Qaeda was not dismantled through social media theatrics or chest-thumping declarations. It was weakened through intelligence fusion, financial disruption, targeted operations, local partnerships, and relentless pressure on leadership networks—mostly without fanfare.

Obama did not tweet. He acted. So what actually works against groups like ISIS in Nigeria?

First, intelligence supremacy. Human intelligence from local communities, defectors, and infiltrators matters more than bombs. Terror groups survive on secrecy. Break that, and they collapse.

Second, financial and logistical strangulation. Terrorists run on money, fuel, arms, and food. Cut access to smuggling routes, illicit mining, ransom flows, and cross-border trade, and their operational capacity withers.

Third, community stabilization and governance. Terrorism thrives where the state is absent. Roads, schools, policing, and justice systems matter. People who trust the state do not shelter terrorists.

Fourth, regional coordination, not episodic strikes. Nigeria, Niger, Chad, and Burkina Faso must sustain joint pressure, not reactive operations driven by headlines.

Airstrikes can support these strategies—but only as tools, never as substitutes.

Trump’s strike may have killed militants. It may have disrupted camps. That is commendable. But it is not a solution. It is a moment. And moments, without strategy, fade.

If Nigerians truly want terror defeated, they should stop worshiping foreign loudness and start demanding disciplined intelligence, consistent policy, and respect for the men and women already fighting on the ground.

Real victories are quiet. Real security is built, not tweeted.

♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015)  and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Trending