Peter Obi's reception in Benue has become another flashpoint in Nigeria's increasingly aggressive 2027 political battle.
After reports of disruption and opposition to Obi's visit, Umar Faruk Lawal, a political associate of Seyi Tinubu, offered a blunt verdict:
“Peter Obi deserves what happened to him in Benue State. Politics is not by mouth or visiting IDP camps. Politics is being done in polling units.”
It is a statement designed to sound like political realism.
But there is a problem.
Faruk Lawal's own political history makes his lecture about electoral legitimacy considerably more complicated.
Before Nigerians accept a lesson from Lawal about how politics is supposedly won at polling units, they should remember the political controversy that surrounded his own attempt to lead the National Association of Nigerian Students.
Because in 2022, Lawal himself was at the centre of a disputed election in which two people claimed the NANS presidency.
And that history raises a rather uncomfortable question:
If polling units are everything, what happens when the legitimacy of the person claiming victory is itself disputed?
The NANS election that produced two presidents
In September 2022, The Nation reported that the NANS presidential election had produced a serious leadership dispute.
Usman Barambu of Federal University Dutse was declared elected by the convention, but Umar Faruk Lawal of Bayero University Kano also claimed victory.
Both camps disputed the legitimacy of the other's process.
The Nation described the situation as one in which two contenders separately claimed the legitimate mandate of NANS electors, with each accusing the other's process of manipulation and irregularities.
That is not a minor footnote.
It goes directly to the philosophy behind Lawal's latest statement.
He says:
“Politics is being done in polling units.”
Fine.
But what happened when the political process involving his own leadership produced competing claims over who actually won?
That question deserves an answer.
He was described as a factional NANS president
The issue was not merely a disagreement on social media.
Major Nigerian media organisations repeatedly described Lawal as a factional president of NANS.
THISDAY reported in September 2022 that two factional presidents had emerged after the NANS election—one led by Lawal and another by Usman Barambu.
The Guardian likewise referred to Lawal as the factional NANS president when reporting his demands over the prolonged ASUU strike.
PUNCH also reported the dispute.
Lawal had filed a case at the National Industrial Court against ASUU, the Federal Government and education officials, describing himself in the suit as President of NANS.
But when the case came before the court, he withdrew it.
Why?
Because his standing as NANS president was being challenged by the other faction.
The court subsequently struck out the case following his withdrawal.
That is a documented episode in Lawal's political history.
And it makes his current lecture about polling-unit politics worth examining.
The man preaching electoral realism once faced a legitimacy crisis
There is nothing wrong with saying that elections are ultimately decided by votes.
Of course they are.
But democracy is not merely about announcing that one has won.
There must be an accepted process for determining who actually won.
That distinction became painfully obvious in the NANS dispute.
Lawal believed he had won.
The opposing faction believed it had won.
The convention's declared outcome pointed in another direction.
The outgoing NANS leadership recognised Usman Barambu.
And the dispute became sufficiently serious to produce litigation.
In other words:
The problem wasn't simply getting votes.
It was establishing whose votes counted, which process was legitimate and who possessed the mandate.
That is exactly why Nigerians should be careful when political operatives reduce democracy to slogans about polling units.
And then came Seyi Tinubu
There is another fascinating chapter.
After the NANS crisis, Lawal publicly credited Bola Tinubu and members of his political network with helping bring the factions together.
In a November 2022 statement published by Nigeria Star News, Lawal thanked Tinubu, Femi Gbajabiamila, Seyi Tinubu and others for what he described as their efforts to defend the unity of NANS.
He specifically referred to Seyi Tinubu as his “big brother” and “Boss.”
This is important context for understanding why Lawal's current political interventions attract attention.
His association with Seyi Tinubu is not merely something invented by opponents.
Lawal himself publicly acknowledged that relationship.
And it predates the current 2027 political contest.
Lawal was also the man defending Seyi Tinubu against Bloomberg allegations
In May 2023, Lawal, as convener of a coalition of civil society groups, publicly attacked a Bloomberg report concerning Seyi Tinubu.
The coalition described allegations concerning an alleged $11 million UK property transaction as malicious and threatened legal action against those spreading what it called false information.
This history matters because it demonstrates something about Lawal's political positioning.
When allegations were directed at someone within Tinubu's political orbit, Lawal was publicly defending him.
Now he is publicly attacking one of the strongest political opponents of the Tinubu camp.
That does not automatically make his current statement false.
But it gives Nigerians important context for understanding where the speaker is politically positioned.
The Seyi Tinubu connection became so prominent that it was once at the centre of a fake-news controversy
There is another unusual chapter.
In 2023, a photograph circulated online supposedly showing Peter Obi meeting Seyi Tinubu.
It was fake.
Africa Check and FactCheckHub independently established that the image had been manipulated.
The original photograph showed Seyi Tinubu speaking with Umar Faruk Lawal, not Peter Obi.
That fact is significant for another reason.
The photograph that was manipulated to insert Peter Obi into the scene was originally a photograph of Lawal himself with Seyi Tinubu.
So when people describe Lawal as an associate of Seyi Tinubu, there is publicly documented photographic and textual evidence for the relationship.
The fake image should not be used to imply that Obi met Seyi Tinubu.
But the original photograph does establish that Lawal was the person actually pictured with Seyi Tinubu.
Then why tell Peter Obi that visiting IDP camps isn't politics?
This is where Lawal's argument begins to look less like political analysis and more like political messaging.
Peter Obi has made visits to displaced persons and communities affected by insecurity part of his political engagement.
Lawal's response is essentially:
Humanitarian visits do not win elections. Polling units do.
There is some truth in the second sentence.
Politicians ultimately need votes.
But Nigeria's political history demonstrates that political influence is built through many channels:
- party organisation;
- grassroots mobilisation;
- community relationships;
- campaign structures;
- voter registration;
- election-day agents;
- messaging;
- fundraising;
- candidate credibility;
- social networks;
- and, ultimately, votes.
So reducing politics to polling units is itself an oversimplification.
You don't magically appear at 176,000-plus polling units on election day.
You build the political machinery before election day.
But the Benue incident raises a bigger question
The most troubling part of the controversy is not whether Obi visited IDP camps.
It is whether a Nigerian politician should be physically prevented from entering or campaigning in a state because local political actors say he is not welcome.
That is a different question.
If Lawal believes Obi's political strategy is weak, he has every right to say so.
If he believes Obi will lose the 2027 election, he can make that prediction.
If he believes voters in Benue will reject Obi, he can campaign against him.
But there is a fundamental difference between:
“Benue voters should reject Peter Obi at the ballot box.”
and
“Peter Obi should not be allowed to enter Benue.”
The first is democracy.
The second raises questions about political intimidation.
Politics is not just about who can block whom
There is a strange contradiction in the Nigerian political environment.
Politicians frequently say:
“Let the people decide.”
But sometimes the political machinery around them seems determined to prevent the opponent from reaching the people in the first place.
That is precisely why the ballot box matters.
If Obi is unpopular in Benue, let Benue voters reject him.
If he is popular, let them support him.
If his IDP visits are political theatre, let voters decide whether they believe him.
If his campaign has no grassroots structure, let election results expose that weakness.
But politicians should not replace the ballot box with roadblocks, intimidation or organised disruption.
Because once that happens, the person with the loudest supporters—or the strongest political machinery—can determine who gets access to the electorate.
That is not democracy.
And Lawal's NANS history makes the argument even more ironic
There is an uncomfortable irony here.
Lawal's own experience demonstrates that political legitimacy cannot simply be declared.
In 2022, two NANS factions claimed victory.
The dispute became serious enough to reach court.
Lawal eventually withdrew his case after his standing was challenged.
Yet today he is lecturing another politician about where politics is supposedly done.
Perhaps the better lesson from his own history is this:
Politics is not merely about claiming victory. It is about building a legitimate process through which voters can determine who actually won.
That is a lesson Nigeria desperately needs in 2027.
The bigger question: is this about Peter Obi—or fear of Peter Obi?
There is another possibility Nigerians should consider.
Why does Peter Obi provoke such intense reactions from political actors?
Obi remains one of the most recognisable opposition figures from the 2023 presidential election.
His supporters believe he represents an alternative to the established political order.
His opponents believe he is overrated and lacks the political machinery required to win nationally.
Both arguments can be tested.
The ballot box will test them.
That is precisely why opposition politicians should be allowed to campaign.
If Obi cannot convert his popularity into votes, the result will expose it.
If he can, the result will expose that too.
No political commentator—including Faruk Lawal—can settle that argument in advance.
Only voters can.
There is one question Lawal should answer
Before telling Nigerians that politics is done at polling units, Lawal should explain what his own NANS experience taught him about political legitimacy.
Did politics end at the moment competing factions announced different winners?
Or did the dispute continue because there had to be an accepted process for establishing legitimacy?
Because that is precisely the issue facing Nigeria today.
A democracy cannot simply be:
“My people are stronger than your people.”
It must be:
“Let the people decide.”
And if the people decide that Peter Obi should lose, he loses.
If they decide he should win, his opponents must accept it.
That is what elections are for.
The real danger in 2027
Nigeria's next presidential election will not only be a competition between politicians.
It will be a test of whether Nigerians can conduct a competitive election without turning political disagreement into physical confrontation.
There will be accusations.
There will be propaganda.
There will be social-media warfare.
There will be political defections.
There will be massive rallies.
There will be attempts to control narratives.
But the most important institution remains the polling unit.
And that is precisely why every politician should defend the right of every legitimate candidate to reach those voters.
Don't defeat your opponent on the road.
Defeat him at the ballot box.
That is the difference between political power and democratic legitimacy.
So yes, Faruk Lawal is right about one thing:
Politics is ultimately settled by votes.
But his own NANS history provides an important reminder:
Getting people to a polling unit is not the same thing as establishing a legitimate mandate.
And if the Nigerian political class truly believes in the polling unit, then it should allow Peter Obi, Bola Tinubu's supporters, Atiku Abubakar's supporters and every other legitimate political movement to reach the Nigerian people.
Then let the voters decide.
No roadblock.
No intimidation.
No political gatekeeper.
Just the ballot.
Comments
Post a Comment