In the combustible terrain of Nigerian politics, especially at the sub-national level, defection is more than just a political maneuver, it is a weapon. It is a signal, a message, a realignment, and at times, a declaration of war. The recent defection of Governor Sheriff Oborevwori from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC) has all the trappings of a calculated political chess move that throws up urgent questions about the future of one of Delta State’s most visible politicians: Senator Ovie Omo-Agege.

Omo-Agege, a key player in Delta’s power circle and former Deputy Senate President, has had his eyes on the governorship seat for years. Despite losing to Oborevwori in the fiercely contested 2023 gubernatorial election, he remained the face of the APC in Delta State. But with the entry of the sitting governor into his party, armed with the weight of incumbency, Omo-Agege’s pathway to gubernatorial power may have just gotten dramatically narrower, if not completely blocked.

Oborevwori’s defection is not a simple change of political jersey. He did not switch allegiance as a lame duck politician. He moved with the power of incumbency and the strategic advantage of being in control of the state apparatus. The implications of this move go beyond Oborevwori seeking refuge in APC due to cracks in the PDP, it is about consolidating power for 2027 and beyond.

Political watchers are already reading between the lines. The question being whispered in political backrooms and party secretariats is simple yet profound: Was this defection orchestrated to kneecap Omo-Agege within his own house?

To understand the gravity of the threat Oborevwori now poses within APC, it is crucial to understand Omo-Agege’s journey. A man not unfamiliar with controversy, Omo-Agege has been a lawyer, commissioner, Secretary to the State Government (SSG), senator, and Deputy Senate President. Known for his boldness and political brinkmanship, he became one of the most prominent APC figures in the South-South, a region largely dominated by PDP.

After championing progressive legislation in Abuja and building a formidable political structure in Delta Central, especially among his Urhobo ethnic group, he was seen as the most viable alternative to PDP’s dominance. His 2023 governorship bid was powered by a heavy war chest, ground troops, federal backing, and a strong media narrative of “liberation” for Delta State. Yet, he lost.

But like most political heavyweights in Nigeria, losing an election did not push him into oblivion. If anything, it strengthened his resolve to remain relevant and mount a comeback in 2027. That plan, however, seems to be under serious threat now.

Until Oborevwori’s defection, Omo-Agege was largely seen as the undisputed leader of the APC in Delta. But that status is now up in the air. In Nigerian political culture, the sitting governor, regardless of when he joins a party, automatically becomes the leader of that party in the state. The reasons are simple: he controls appointments, patronage networks, state funds, and grassroots mobilization structures, including local government chairmen and councilors. These assets are often more critical than federal influence when it comes to swaying delegate votes and controlling party primaries.

For the APC, which has struggled to unseat the PDP in Delta for decades, Oborevwori’s defection is viewed as a win. But for Omo-Agege, it is a political tsunami. He now faces the awkward prospect of having to negotiate space within his own political turf, if not outrightly playing second fiddle to the same man he accused of electoral manipulation just a year ago.#

At this juncture it is germane to ask, “Was Oborevwori’s motivated to decamp from PDP as a way of escape or expansion?” The foregoing question since the last few days he defected to APC has remained unanswered.  In fact, since then, not a few people are asking “Why did Oborevwori defect?” To answer the foregoing question, several theories abound.

Some argue he is merely escaping a sinking PDP ship, particularly with his godfather Ifeanyi Okowa’s influence in decline. Others suggest he is preparing to cut his own political path without being shackled by lingering intra-party crises that have plagued the PDP at both state and national levels. However, a more strategic interpretation is gaining ground: that Oborevwori’s entry into APC was engineered by powerful forces in Abuja to neutralize Omo-Agege and consolidate APC’s hold in Delta by offering the party a sitting governor in return for internal restructuring.

This theory is not far-fetched. Political analysts familiar with Abuja’s power play know that national leaders are not emotionally attached to old loyalists. They are more concerned with win-ability, optics, and strategic advantage. And in the 2027 political calculus, a sitting governor seeking re-election on the platform of APC may offer better prospects than a former senator, regardless of how loyal the latter has been.

Although elections are still over two years away, the groundwork for 2027 is already underway. Within Delta APC, power blocs are forming, and battle lines are being drawn. If Oborevwori seeks a second term under the APC, it will require full control of the party’s structure. That puts him on a collision course with Omo-Agege, who will also be eyeing another chance at the top seat, perhaps his last viable opportunity, given political realities and the shifting sands of age and relevance.

Against the backdrop of the foregoing view, there is no denying the fact that Delta APC now faces the challenge of balancing political egos without imploding. If the leadership at the national level chooses to back Oborevwori, perhaps as part of a broader realignment in the South-South ahead of 2027, Omo-Agege may find himself increasingly isolated, unless he can negotiate power-sharing or stage an internal rebellion.

Delta’s politics is shaped as much by ethnic identity as by political ideology. The tripod structure, Delta North (Anioma), Delta Central (Urhobo), and Delta South (Ijaw, Itsekiri, and Isoko), has an unspoken rotational agreement. Oborevwori is Urhobo, like Omo-Agege, and with him currently occupying the top seat, many believe the next governorship cycle (barring Oborevwori’s re-election) should tilt towards either Delta North or Delta South.

This further complicates Omo-Agege’s ambition. If zoning holds, he may be effectively disqualified from contesting, especially if Oborevwori is not seeking re-election. But if Oborevwori decides to run for a second term under APC, and the national party backs him, Omo-Agege’s window closes further.

President Bola Tinubu’s own political style adds another layer to this drama. Known for pragmatism and reward-based politics, Tinubu may find Oborevwori’s defection appealing, especially if it adds a South-South governorship to his political portfolio in 2027. But Tinubu also respects loyalty and strategic alliances, and Omo-Agege has been loyal.

Now another question, “Will Tinubu attempt to broker peace between both men? Or will he back the man with executive power in the state?” Either way, Omo-Agege will need more than loyalty to secure APC’s 2027 ticket. He will need a compelling counter-strategy.

Then another question is the option left for Omo-Agege’s that of reinvention or resistance? Faced with this new reality, Omo-Agege has three clear options that cut across that of negotiating a power deal, lead a legal resistance, or lead a political resistance.

Explanatorily put, he can work out an internal compromise with Oborevwori and the APC national leadership, perhaps stepping aside in exchange for a senatorial return, ministerial slot, or control of some critical state structures.

If sidelined, Omo-Agege may rally aggrieved APC members and stake his claim in the court of public opinion and intra-party politics. This could split the party and damage its electoral chances, but may secure him leverage.

Though risky, a strategic defection to another party, possibly Labour Party or even a Third Force, could allow Omo-Agege to redefine himself as the real opposition. However, the absence of federal backing could handicap such a move.

The political theater in Delta State has just taken a dramatic twist, and the leading actors, Oborevwori and Omo-Agege, are set for a backstage tug-of-war that will shape the next act in the state’s political narrative.

In a system where defection is the norm, not the exception, the game is no longer just about loyalty or ideology, it is about structure, incumbency, and control. With Oborevwori’s defection, the APC now finds itself having to choose between two elephants. And as the old saying goes, when elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. In this case, that grass may be Omo-Agege’s long-nurtured gubernatorial ambition.

Unless he reinvents himself, regroups his base, and retools his strategy, he may find himself not just sidelined but entirely shut out of the 2027 equation. The storm is gathering, and only time will tell who emerges with their political sails still intact.

Last week, the entire political structure of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in what has been tagged political tsunami dissolved into the All Progressives Congress (APC) because, in the words of Sheriff Oborevwori, the Delta State governor, “the drinking pattern needed to change as a result of changes in the taste of the palm wine”.

To observers of Nigerian politics that have watched the descent of ‘PDP family feud over the sharing of our resources” into war of attrition, the development sounded the death knell of the PDP.

To PDP enablers and self-proclaiming crusaders of democracy however, the development constitutes a threat to survival of democracy which is believed to thrive better within multi-party system. But from their chat with Chief Bode George, anchored by Reuben Abati of Arise TV and his crew and with Dele Momodu by Channel TV’s Seun Okinbaloye however, death of PDP spells doom for our democracy and should that happen, the president and his APC should be held responsible.

The truth is that PDP is not a political party in spite of its media enablers’ efforts to cloak it in borrowed robes of political party. John Campbell, a former American ambassador to Nigeria had during proceedings at a hearing on the topic: Nigeria In Turmoil on March 19, 2010 described PDP as “an elite cartel at the centre of power in Nigeria… a political party that came together with no ideological or programmatic basis, but simply as essentially a club of elites for sharing of oil rents and political spoils”.

That thesis has been validated several times over.

The first act of betrayal of Nigeria by PDP National Assembly members who publicly expressed the eagerness to recoup their election expenses having sold houses to prosecute the election was the passage of Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency (PPPRA) Bill within three months. With that, the number of fuel importers went from four major oil companies to over a hundred. The new outfit which merely duplicated the functions Ministry of Petroleum Resources became an instrument by which PDP stalwarts and their children defrauded the nation to the tune of about NI.7 trillion “without importing a pint of fuel” according to Audu Ogbe, the then PDP chairman.

Then President Obasanjo and his PDP in the name of privatization between 1999-2014 sold off most of Nigerian public enterprises estimated at over $100b for a paltry $1.5b to their members or their fronts. It was on account of this the 7th Senate report of November 30, 2011 directed the National Council on Privatization to:

 “Rescind the sale of Abuja International Hotels Limited (Nicon Luxury Hotel) as well as Sheraton Hotel and Towers;  that the sales of assets of Daily Times Nigeria PLC  by Folio Communications Limited and its directors  be investigated by anti-graft agencies and the sold assets recovered; that the Share Purchase Agreement of Volkswagen Nigeria Limited now (VON)  be rescinded and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to investigate the economic crimes being perpetrated against the nation at VON Automobile Nigeria Limited premises in Lagos by Barbedos Ventures Limited; that NICON Insurance PLC  should immediately refund with interest, the sum of N900 million to the Federal Government being money paid by BPE in February 2007 as contribution for recapitalization with accrued interest; that Nigeria Re-insurance PLC  should immediately refund the sum of N1 billion paid by BPE in February 2007 as contribution of the Federal Government for recapitalization with accrued interest and that  the former Directors-General, Nasir el-Rufai,  Julius Bala and  Irene Nkechi Chigbue should be reprimanded by the National Council on Privatization”.

The privatization of the power sector was not different. After an injection of between $8.2-$15b of taxpayers’ money by the federal government, 15 companies made up of 10 Distribution Companies (DISCOs) and five Generation Companies (GENCOs)  paid $2.238b to take over 60% of unbundled PHCN in August 2013. President Jonathan on the occasion assured Nigerians that his administration will ensure that “Nigerians enjoy a minimum of 18 hours of electricity supply a day”.

Speaking on this betrayal of Nigeria, Bola Tinubu, during   the 11th Bola Tinubu Colloquium had said, “The PDP administration shared our generation, distribution and transmission to their friends and cronies without very deep and thoughtful research and evaluation. It has now become pork chops. He therefore  suggested  that “for a more constructive reform to improve generation, transmission and distribution, this privatization must be reviewed by putting experts together at all costs”, without prejudice to the legal implications.

PDP members that always regard themselves as family members are tarred with the same brush. Obasanjo who chased Diepreye Alamieyeseigha from Germany to London from where he escaped to Nigeria, dressed as a woman for defrauding his Bayelsa State; Obasanjo who ensured 17 of PDP and ANPP 24 governors between 1999 and 2007 were dragged by EFCC to court for financial malfeasance; Obasanjo who described National Assembly members  as “pen robbers”  for budget padding, arm-twisted governors and government contractors to collect N7 billion to build a personal presidential library while the national library he initiated in 2006 is still under construction 20 years after.

His godson, President Goodluck Jonathan, taking after his footsteps also secured N7 billion from serving governors and government contractors to build a church and recreation centre in his native Otueke village. Atiku Abubakar, Obasanjo’s vice president was indicted for his role in the privatization programme forcing Obasanjo to declare: “If I support Atiku for anything, God will not forgive me. If I do not know, yes. But once I know, Atiku can never enjoy my support.”

Dimeji Bankole, a former speaker of the House of Representatives was accused of immorally purchasing his official house while David Mark, the former senate president in “2011 purchased the official residence of the senate president, built on 1.6 hectares of land, a national monument that was not meant to be acquired by an individual and was never reflected in the federal government’s gazette as required”.

Bukola Saraki, another PDP leading light, was the whistle blower in the PDP N1.6trillion fuel subsidy scandal. In anger, he joined other disgruntled PDP members to pull down PDP for alleging the company in which he had interest was involved in the fuel subsidy scandal. In APC, Saraki confessed to literarily stealing the senate presidency by ceding the control of the senate with 60 APC majorities to PDP with 49 senators. He also traded off the deputy senate president’s position which by convention belongs to the ruling party with a majority, to Ekwerenmadu of PDP.

Prof Itse Sagay, a renowned constitutional lawyer had back then described Saraki’s victory as “a victory for impunity, a victory for fraud and a victory for political desperation and indiscipline. Similarly his victory was dismissed by Anwalu Yadudu, former Dean Faculty of Law, Bayero University as ‘lies in the face of democratic ideals, having stemmed from ‘a flawed election by a fraction of yet to be constituted senate”.

Nearly all the leading lights of PDP allegedly partook in the sharing of $2.4 billion loan for military wares and welfares. While Dazuki’s account’s officer reportedly claimed his boss asked him to get $11M from the CBN, Dasuki’ was widely quoted as saying the president asked to change N10b dollars to be shared to delegates.

Other PDP partakers according to EFCC include Iyorchia Ayu, Bode George, Attahiru Bafarawa, Raymond Dokpesi, Peter Odili, Jim Nwobodo and N950m shared in Shekarau’s house. Aziboala, GEJ’s cousin allegedly received N6 billion, Nenadi Usman N3.5 billion; Ayodele Fayose N3 billion and Musiliu Obanikoro, N4 billion. Tony Anenih – N400 million; Olisa Metuh took N400 million, Jolly Nyame- N2.4 billion and Joshua Dariye -N700 million etc.

Prof Chukwuma Soludo told Nigerians that “Over N30 trillion is mismanaged, unaccounted for or missing under Jonathan” while Obi Ekwesili, Obasanjo’s education minister lamented that “Our reserve is depleted and our savings are squandered. Our nation is in trouble.”

The greatest tragedy that can befall a nation, according to Wole Soyinka, the conscience of the nation, “is for her citizens to suffer collective amnesia”.  PDP and its media enablers believe Nigerians have short memories,

They also think we are incapable of drawing a parallel between massive defrauding of the nation in the years of the locust and the ‘japa’ syndrome which has taken thousands of our jobless youths into second slavery in Europe and America.

I am not sure Nigerians, earnestly awaiting PDP rites of passage will shed tears for PDP who, while in power, fought over sharing of our resources and properties kept in their care for our children and out of power, are today engaged in war of attrition over who, out of established fraudsters, should lead the next assault on Nigeria.

Nowadays not a single day passes without a statement coming mainly from northern political figures and commentators complaining about how President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is short changing the Northern region on project allocation, appointments, political marginalisation and policy direction of his administration.

Senator Ali Ndume representing Borno South has been the most strident and eloquent on this subject with his presentation of unimpeachable comparative facts and figures on projects the Tinubu administration had embarked in the southern part of the country, particularly the South Western region where the president comes from vis-à-vis the North. He had also forwarded a list of appointments showing how the South Western part of the country had been unfairly favoured against other parts of the country which goes against the principle of federal character in appointments and representation.

Senator Ndume is not alone in this northern crusade. Recently Senators and Representatives from the North Eastern geopolitical region of the country addressed the media on the subject of allocation of agricultural projects in the country, which left out the entire six states of the region. For a region which is the largest in landmass and which is renowned for massive agricultural and livestock production, this oversight can only be deliberate and underscores the Tinubu administration’s policy of not only the North East but the North as a whole, said the North East legislators.

The feeling of unfairness by the Tinubu administration is the trending topic across the entire north in informal conversations among classes of people and in formal occasions involving the northern intelligentsia. There is an unmistakeable feeling that President Tinubu’s unfair treatment of the North amounts to a betrayal of trust and non-recognition of the massive votes (about 60 per cent of the total tally) that the region gave him to enable his victory at the 2023 elections.

But while the north is griping about what it regards as undeserving unfairness at the hands of the president, there are salient factors we should not gloss over on the subject.

How much of the unfairness against the north can be attributed to President Tinubu policies? Is the president the only source of the North’s misfortunes or are there other contributory sources? Why is the North moaning about unfairness just two years into the Tinubu administration when northerners have been at the helm of affairs in the country for over 40 of the 65 years of the country’s independence? Why didn’t northerners who have ruled the country institute policies that would have provided the necessary props for a northern economic transformation all this while to compliments the region’s political dominance in the country?

A partial answer to these posers has been provided by political cartoonist, Bulama Bukarti in his caricature of northern political elite which appeared on the Weekend Trust Newspaper edition of the penultimate weekend. In it Bukarti showed several doors depicting the existential challenges of the region which needed to be addressed by the northern elites. These challenges included prevalent insecurity, poverty, education, the parlous state of northern economy and the issue of political power. In the caricature, northern elites were seen rushing towards the door marked ‘’Northern Coalition to take over power’’. None of the elite were seen paying as much attention to the other doors.

In many ways this has been the purpose and focus of northern political power control; seeking and exercising political power for its sake and not necessarily for the larger and more meaningful northern human development. In the over 40 years that northerners have held power in this country, trillions of funds have accrued to the 19 northern states enough to more than transform its land and peoples and Nigeria by extension into an industrial power. Many individual northerners have made money beyond their dreams and belief, but this had hardly trickled down to the northern masses to change their lives and the land for the better. Indeed ironically the more northern elites get into the political power loop the more the more the north lost its modest economic and social foundation.

The underlying reason for the paradox of northern political power and regression in economic and social foundations are embedded in historical factors. At the dawn of the colonial era, the northern political and social structure was largely feudal; made up of the ruling aristocracy and a vast subservient peasant class who toiled as economic chattels and were socially beholden to the ruling class.

At the beginning of the colonial enterprise in Nigeria, the British subsumed the northern ruling aristocracy allowing them the powers to clamp the peasant class so as to ensure stability and continuity of the colonial administration.

Thus while other parts of the country there were little or no hindrance to the transforming economic and social changes that the colonial advent brought through education, in the north this was largely restricted. While in the southern part of the country, the middle class was growing and expanding with people getting more educated and being absorbed into the growing Nigerian economy as Engineers, Technicians, Doctors, Administrators, Traders, the northern ruling aristocracy contrived to severely restrict the similar expansion of northern peasantry into the northern middle class.

The template for the restricted human capital development in the north worked so successfully during the colonial times that at independence in 1960 while there were hundreds of schools and institutions in the south, there were less than fifty such schools in the north. While in the south there were hundreds of lawyers, engineers, technicians etc the north was grossly deficit in these areas. This pattern of deliberate human underdevelopment put the north at a disadvantage in critical sectors of Nigerian economic and social life which exist till today.

At independence when northerners led the government of Nigeria, they realise this factor and tried to introduce policies and measures to remedy the situation in the north. But it was too late because although northerners held political power in the country, there were not enough northern middle class to complement northern political power control in the country.

The coming to power of President Tinubu was not just power shift to the south, more significantly it represented the coming of the south west into the centre of Nigerian politics. Before then the south west had been content to play the opposition role in the country. Now that that the south west had morphed fully into the centre of Nigerian politics, it should be expected that they will bring in the full complement of the south western middle class into the available spaces they can find or create in the Nigerian political centre they now occupy through President Tinubu.

The North should also know that the south west will not leave the Nigerian political centre anytime soon and will ruthlessly restructure the Nigerian political space to ensure total dominance and control in the coming years. And what the north should also consider is that much of the political restructuring will come at the expense of the north.

The reality that the north should face is not just about the political power that has now being ceded to President Tinubu who is ruthlessly determined to restructure the Nigerian political economy to the advantage of where he hails from. What the north should do more importantly is to own up to the fact that the fault does not necessarily lie with President Tinubu, but more within. Organizing to retake power without collectively facing up to and resolving the massive visible weaknesses and cracks prevalent in the north would yield little even if the north succeeds in its bid.

President Tinubu has demonstrated by his policies how to use political power to advance group political and economic interests. This may look discomforting to others but in the context of Nigerian politics and its exclusivist trajectory this is the reality. Northern elites who have exercised political power in the country but did little to advance the progress of their region should learn applicable lessons from that.

Gadu can be reached via Ilgad2009@gmail.com  and 08035355706 (Texts only)

27 April in South Africa, reminds us of the immeasurable sacrifices made by individuals and nations to break them away from the chains of unjust segregation by a selected few. It reminds Africans of the efforts of their national heroes, particularly Nelson Mandela. He is regarded as a champion of freedom, not only in South Africa but the entire world. It is a day that not only marks the emancipation of South Africans from apartheid but also returned their essential human rights in 1994.

The celebration is a reminder of the unity and diversity for all that was established on this day in 1994. Many families might have a special meal or a barbecue to commemorate the day. There might also be local parades and street parties to mark the day. There are a few quotes to drive home my points on issues of freedom and threat to democracy in Africa. Freedom means the opportunity to be what we never thought we would be.” – Daniel J. Boorstin. “Life without liberty is like a body without spirit.” – Kahlil Gibran. “When we lost the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free.” – Charles Evans Hughes.

Furthermore, freedom of speech protects freedom from tyranny. The free flow of information allows for intelligent voting / democracy. Democracy cannot survive the masses being ignorant and or just stupid. As such, Democracy is ‘of’ the people, ‘for’ the people, ‘by’ the people- in short the system revolves around the people, they are the ones who have the power to choose their representatives and change the government in the next election, if they’re unhappy with the present government.

In the golden words of Martin Luther King Jr, an American Baptist minister, activist, and political philosopher who was one of the most prominent leaders in the civil rights movement from 1955 until his assassination in 1968. MLK posited: “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” In my view, the postulations of MLK, is ‘time to wake up’ which generally means it’s the appropriate time to stop sleeping and begin the day.

Following From the above, there are two other quotes I would like to use to explain myself, the first one being: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” and the second one being: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. In Africa today, many countries in the continent are still fighting for their freedom, whether it be economic, social, political, environmental, or psychological.

Globally, democracy is under pressure: electoral systems have come under attack, authoritarianism is resurgent, and civic freedoms are shrinking. Against this backdrop, democracy without opposition is not a democracy and should outrightly be considered authoritarianism. Therefore, the “opposition” should in no way be confused with “hostility” to the government.

Additionally, the existence of two or more parties is not enough, the government must assume that it requires and must have a political counterweight. Otherwise, authoritarian temptations will arise with the consequent deterioration of democratic principles. The government-opposition dialectic not only measures the forces that support the government but also those that exercise an active power of criticism, control, and alternative direction of the government.

Arguably, the whole concept of democracy is to keep questioning its existence and why it is there in a country. If there is no opposition, media in a democracy, it can’t be questioned directly and will never be accountable to its citizens. In democracy, the decisions are taken by mutual agreements and governments have to be very careful about their decisions and the impacts of their decisions. The rate of development in any democratic country is faster than any other country.

All this is because, the government is under regular questioning and observation and if government does anything wrong, they are criticized for it. If the government does not fulfill its goals and promises to people, not only it’s put under questioning and criticism by opposition and media but also changed in the upcoming elections.

Conclusively, in these times of growing uncertainties, we are witnessing, a clear departure from democracy to totalitarian system in our beloved country Nigeria in particular. Nigeria’s democracy which was the result of sacrifice by our heroes and hard-won through decades of struggle, painful sacrifice and continuous resistance against authoritarian rules in the past years. This is definitely not the democracy that Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola (MKO) and many others envisioned.

Finally, permit me to use the examples of Lee Kuan Yew who took charge, ran a merit-based administration and waged war against corruption, economic saboteurs, and insecurity without favouritism. He built modern Singapore, whose economy is ranked the most open and the joint least-corrupt country in the world on the Corruption Perception Index. Rwanda’s Paul Kagame is demonstrating how purposeful, visionary leadership can help a poor traumatized country rise from civil war, genocide, and privation to deliver robust growth, stability, and inclusion. The million dollars question on the minds of millions of our compatriots: is the Tinubu’s government going to continue with the failure of the Buhari’s regime or chose the part of honor as exemplified by Lee Kuan Yew and Paul Kagama.?