Politics
Why 5 military coups took place in Nigeria — IBB
• Justifies military incursions into governance
Former Military President, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, IBB (retd), has justified military incursions into governance in Nigeria.
IBB, who explained why the country had five coups between 1966 and 1985, added that military governments had more development projects than civilian governments.
In extracts from Part Three, Chapter Five, pages 104 to 115 of his controversial Autobiography: ‘A Journey in Service’, launched last Thursday, he highlighted the motivations behind military interventions, the historical context of coups in Nigeria and Africa, the structural reforms initiated by military leaders, and the on-going challenge of ensuring responsible governance.
He wrote:
When I started working on this autobiography a few years ago, I knew that, as someone who had participated in military coups, I would, at some point, need to reiterate my position on the problematic issue of military interventions in politics.
Anyone, who reads descriptions of me, particularly in foreign publications, as a ‘serial coup plotter’, or as ‘the moving spirit behind most military plots in Nigeria’, would think that my 35-year military career was devoted entirely to coup plotting!
One foreign journalist, Karl Maier, whom I readily obliged with an interview, ‘returned’ the favour in his book: ‘This House Has Fallen’, by claiming that ‘coups seem to run in my blood’!
He was not the only one with that mindset. In its reporting of the coup that brought me to office as head of the government, one international news magazine headlined its story: ‘The Triumph of the Trouble-maker’! I will not bother responding to the discriminatory implications that I did no more than plot coups as a soldier.
This volume bears testimony to the modest contributions of a soldier who stood up to play the role assigned to him by destiny at a notably peculiar moment in his country’s history. And as I will show in subsequent chapters of this book, it’s a role (my mistakes and shortcomings, notwithstanding) that I look back upon with pride.
Resurging coups in Africa
When I started writing this book, I had also hoped that I could say that coup d’etats in Africa are now a thing of the past. But, thirty years after I left office, sadly, seven African countries, from across the Sahel to Sudan, are under military rule.
First, let me restate my position on the matter. Military coup d’etats, that is, overthrowing an incumbent government, whether as redemptive or corrective measures, are an aberration and should never be encouraged. Indeed, coups in the context of a democracy such as ours are not just unacceptable; they are illegal.
Appropriate sections of the Nigerian constitution insist that ‘Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any persons or group of persons take control of the Government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution’. So, the question should be this: if these are the provisions of our constitution, how did we end up with five military coups since 1960, the last of them being the 1993 Abacha coup?
Why we had coups in Nigeria
To put these in perspective, we would have to go back to our history as a nation and the challenges that have defined and shaped our collective existence.
But first, the larger picture. Military takeovers are not peculiar to Africa or isolated to Nigeria. The history of post-colonial Africa shows that where civilian leadership and the political class have failed to live up to their billings and progressively build upon the legacy of the colonialists, the military attempted to step in. In some cases, these interventions have been nothing short of revolutionary…
The point to note here, of course, was that the sordid failure of a particular ruling class created the need for an inevitable change. A pattern where the political class virtually abdicates its responsibility to the governed typically created the conditions that led to several military interventions in post-colonial Africa. Also, certain coups, given the peculiar political and socio-economic circumstances, are genuinely revolutionary, especially where the masses support the coup and where the coup-makers, beyond their own rhetoric, embody the people’s hopes and aspirations.
But the risks were always there because, to go back to Colonel Ibrahim Taiwo, whom I referred to earlier, a ‘good’ coup is only a successful coup, and a failed coup is a mutiny and high treason! Again, before I am misunderstood, let me reiterate my position: I do not suggest that military interventions, which can be undue interferences in the politics of a country, are replacements for incumbent governments. Nor do I imply that the military is the guarantor of good behaviour; far from it. All that I suggest is that coups don’t just happen.
They are sometimes inspired by extraneous conditions that demand interventions. Generally, the abject failure of civilian governments is the cause of coups. Therefore, a fairer assessment of why the armed forces seized power was not to be found in their success or failure to deliver once they took over but in the various factors and events preceding the intervention. Our example at home in Nigeria bears me out.
Without necessarily justifying the actions of the young majors of the 1966 coup, it’s possible to argue that the conditions that the young majors were compelled to face, even without sometimes asking for it, drove their actions. And to understand how and why a group of young, idealistic and a political UK-trained army majors violently overthrew an elected civilian government of Sir Balewa, it would be proper to examine the circumstances that led to the 1966 coup briefly.
Meddling of politicians
The first of the many problems of those years was the unwise meddling of politicians in Army affairs. As the powers of the Balewa government were weakened by crises like the Tiv riots and Western Nigeria’s Operation wetie, it relied on the military to quell what were essentially ‘political’ unrests.
Almost as if hamstringing their powers, the politicians looked up to soldiers to restore some control in ways that may have unwittingly politicised and radicalised the young officers.
One should also remember that these were highly skilled young officers who, by the nature of their orientation, were nationalistic by training and idealistic by inclination. For instance, no one remembers now that Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu, who led the 1966 coup, was the first Nigerian officer to be trained in military intelligence and who served as the military intelligence officer during Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s treason trial.
In that capacity, he would have had unrestricted access to some of the most vulnerable information of the rot of the civilian administration. Obviously, many of the young officers were conversant with information that would have infuriated them, such as the flaunting of wealth and squalid crookedness displayed by politicians.
When Chief K. O. Mbadiwe moved into his landmark castle at his home in Arondizuogu, ‘the Palace of the People’, opened by Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa, and the press complained about its extravagance, Mbadiwe told the public off by jocularly reminding everyone that his new home was indeed for the people! First Republic Finance Minister, Chief Festus Samuel Okotie-Eboh, was also in the eye of the storm. One unforgiving retired colonial officer, Harold Smith, described ‘festering Sam’ in unprintable words and ended up designating him as ‘synonymous with corruption in Lagos’!
First Republic mistakes
There’s no question at all that the politicians of the First Republic made many mistakes, traceable, presumably, to some of the defective institutional structures they inherited and the poor choices they were forced to make. However, it can also be argued that Indian political leadership inherited similar structures at independence in 1947 but managed to create complex but different choices that led the country along a different path.
Several studies have shown that some of the fundamental issues that have continued to plague us to this day as a nation, as, for instance, the mindless interplay of ethnicism and religious identities, can be traced to the First Republic. As the situation in the country deteriorated in the days leading up to January 1966, many of the young majors came under the influence of radical southern intellectuals, particularly at the University of Ibadan, who were openly calling on the military to save the country from disintegration.
In some cases, the call for intervention resonated with incitement and even instigation. In other cases, politicians secretly called upon the military to intervene. This enthusiasm for change partly explains why, when the young majors, driven, as I have said earlier, by a genuine patriotic desire to correct the political mess in which the country had found itself and decided to overthrow the civilian Balewa government, there was an initial sense of national relief before the situation was mishandled.
Surprisingly, with the possible exception of the Abacha coup of November 1993, each of these military takeovers was welcomed with jubilation and relish and subsequently legitimised by public opinion in ways that would have impacted the psyche of the military. And this brings me back to my earlier point: coups don’t just happen. The failure of civilian governments is the cause of coups. They derive from deplorable conditions created by a political leadership that abdicates its responsibility to the people. Conversely, the best antidote to coups is sound, transparent civilian governance that constantly reminds itself that governance’s prime purpose is the people’s welfare. Curiously, in witnessing the jubilation that accompanied military takeovers, I took away a few lessons (a subject to which I shall return later) from the hypocrisy of the political elite that recurred throughout my career.
Some of the most vociferous opponents of military rule were those who first stepped forward to request and lobby for benefits from the system after successful military takeovers. In other cases, some of the same members of the elite class who secretly advised on the extension of military rule were the same to accuse the military of a ‘hidden agenda’ to perpetuate itself in office!
Between these groups were genuinely patriotic Nigerians who offered their services, sometimes in return for nothing save for helping to grow and develop the country. For the umpteenth time, let me repeat: the days of military rule in Nigeria are over. Neither do I suggest that the military doesn’t have its share of blame for how we got to where we are today as a nation. But to indicate beyond that that military intervention was irredeemably disastrous is grossly unfair.
Those who are quick to accuse the Nigerian military of being no more than spoilt brats who merely fought to perpetuate themselves in power must never forget that as trained military officers, we, too, invested our lifetime, our youths, hopes, dreams and energy in the promise of a great country. For instance, the one thing that has hardly been adequately recognised in our history is the gallant peace-keeping roles of the Nigerian military worldwide…..
But, even if we ignore these roles and concentrate solely on military interventions in government, the Nigerian military has much to be proud of. Indeed, in certain respects, military leadership did more than the political class in the growth and development of our country. For instance, the military did creditably well in confronting the fundamental reform matters that have plagued us since 1960.
The military’s attempt to resolve the issues of the structural balancing of our polity, the choices between a federal, unitary or even a confederal structure, and the problems of creating states deserve to be recalled. And as I stated earlier, it should never be forgotten that General Ironsi’s attempt at a unitary government, self-delusionary as it may have seemed at the time, was an attempt to address this structural challenge. Similarly, the still-born 1967 Aburi Accord was an attempt to redress the challenges of (to use a more politically correct word) restructuring!
Although Aburi failed, among other things, for reasons that had to do with the absence of legal experts and the shortness of the available two days to thrash out the complex problems of national balancing at a difficult time in the country’s history, General Gowon made up for it by creating, as I stated above, on May 5, 1967, 12 new states that assuaged some of the anger of the moment.
Then, as if to consolidate on the gains of that momentous event of the creation of states and further unify the country after the successful execution of the Civil War, General Gowon initiated, again, as I stated above, the National Youth Service Corps Scheme on May 22, 1973, to foster, in his own words, ‘unity and peaceful coexistence of Nigeria at a period when the country was just recovering and at a low ebb’.
…The cumulative strides of those years were genuinely noteworthy, that is, the Gowon years through the Muhammed-Obasanjo administrations, the creation of states and the corresponding stabilisation of the polity, the monumental infrastructural developments that opened up the country, and the full implications of the free educational programme. While it’s difficult to fully assess their impact on the socio-economic growth and development of the country, it is sufficient merely to state that those measures were not only inspiring, but they laid the foundation for succeeding governments, civilian and military, for many years after. (Vanguard)
Politics
Stakeholders demand sanctions against A’Court’s Justice Lifu, as Mark warns FG on political manipulation
Following the Court of Appeal’s decision to reverse the deregistration of the African Democratic Congress and four other parties on Monday, ADC National Chairman Senator David Mark stated the judiciary is on trial and warned the Federal Government against political manipulation.
Stakeholders also called for sanctions against Justice Peter Lifu for flouting a superior court order, as the ADC assures supporters they will remain on the ballot.
Political parties and stakeholders affected by the Federal High Court’s controversial deregistration order welcomed the Court of Appeal’s decision to stay the execution of the judgment.
The Court of Appeal in Abuja had on Tuesday ordered a stay of execution of the judgment that directed the Independent National Electoral Commission to deregister the ADC, Action Peoples Party, Action Alliance, Accord Party and Zenith Labour Party, while delivering a stinging rebuke to Justice Lifu for flouting a May 22 appellate court order restraining him from delivering the ruling.
In a unanimous decision on Tuesday, a three-member panel led by Justice A. B. Mohammed condemned Justice Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja for flouting a May 22 order that directed him to suspend proceedings before him, describing his conduct as the gravest form of judicial misconduct.
“The decision of the lower court to proceed with the judgment despite the express order of this court is a brazen violation of the hierarchy of the court and the 1999 Constitution,” the panel held.
The appellate court went further, invoking a Supreme Court precedent to characterise Justice Lifu’s conduct in the harshest terms.
“The decision of the lower court to proceed with the judgment despite the express order of this court is the highest form of judicial impertinence,” the panel declared, adding that the Supreme Court had previously held that a judge who acted in such a manner “is unfit for the bench as it amounts to judicial rascality.”
The court said it had a duty to assert its supervisory authority over lower courts and protect the integrity of the judicial hierarchy.
“Courts are enjoined to protect their integrity. This court has supervisory authority over the trial court. This court has the duty to invoke its powers in ensuring that its orders are obeyed. The application for stay of execution is hereby granted. The enforcement of the judgment is stayed,” the panel ruled.
The Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Lifu, had on Monday ordered INEC to deregister the ADC, Accord Party, Action Alliance, Action Peoples Party and Zenith Labour Party, ruling that the five parties failed to meet the constitutional performance thresholds under Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution, specifically, requirements related to securing at least 25 per cent of votes in certain states or winning seats in the 2023 general elections.
Earlier in Tuesday’s proceedings, INEC told the appellate court it was stunned by Justice Lifu’s decision to deliver the judgment, disclosing that the commission only learned of the ruling through media reports rather than any official notification.
INEC’s lead counsel, Mr Haliru Mohammed, told the panel that the commission had been aware of the appellate court’s May 22 order restraining the lower court from delivering the judgment, which had originally been reserved for June 5.
“We were not aware of any notice from the court regarding the delivery of the judgment. We only saw it as breaking news in the media. We therefore do not oppose the application of the appellant to stay the execution of the judgment,” Mohammed submitted.
The commission also aligned itself with the notice of appeal filed by the affected political parties.
Counsel to the ADC, Mr Shuaibu Aruwa, SAN, told the court that Justice Lifu communicated the judgment’s delivery to the party via WhatsApp, a disclosure that drew visible reactions from the bench.
Aruwa described the lower court’s conduct as an invitation to anarchy and urged the appellate court to invoke its disciplinary jurisdiction under Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution to sanction the judge.
“The action of the trial judge calls for swift and extraordinary measures from this court. We have come to the stage where this court should press the reset button.
“We urge this court to take disciplinary steps by immediately suspending that judgment. This court has the power to protect its own integrity. We pray this court suspends the judgment immediately without further delay,” he added.
APC reacts
Reacting to the appellate court’s decision, the ADC’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, said the ruling offered a measure of hope for the judiciary’s credibility, though he was careful not to celebrate unreservedly.
“It indicates that the judiciary may still redeem itself. We are cautiously delighted but we insist that it shouldn’t have happened in the first place,” Abdullahi said in a telephone interview.
He called on the National Judicial Council to take urgent steps to rid the bench of judges whose conduct brought the institution into disrepute.
“We, therefore, hope that the judicial council will take urgent steps to purge the bench of judges who bring the judicial institution to disrepute,” he said.
The National Leader of the Action Peoples Party, Ikenga Ugochinyere, was more emphatic in his welcome of the ruling, describing it as a vindication of the party’s position from the outset and calling on the NJC to weed out what he termed controversial judges.
“There was no need to panic in the first place, and, so, this ruling is a vindication of our position from the get-go,” Ugochinyere said.
“We call on the NJC to weed out controversial justices who say one thing in the morning and another in the evening. These are the bad eggs giving the judiciary a bad name,” he added.
Ugochinyere raised broader concerns about public confidence in the justice system, warning that judicial inconsistency was eroding citizens’ respect for court pronouncements.
“Court pronouncements are supposed to be respected by citizens, particularly because they come from institutions established by law. But when people begin to hide behind technicalities, it raises concerns about the integrity of those institutions.
“How do we expect citizens to obey court judgments when many people no longer see justice as blind, but rather as something influenced by individuals and personal interests? That is the challenge before us,” the APP leader added.
He also noted that the controversy surrounding Justice Lifu’s ruling had sparked frustration across the country, with some of the anger directed at the presidency.
“This situation has generated a lot of reactions across the country. Many people are directing their frustrations at the President. Perhaps there is a need for greater clarity so that Nigerians understand exactly what is happening,” Ugochinyere said.
He nevertheless described Tuesday’s outcome as a victory for democracy and the rule of law.
“What happened today (Tuesday) is a victory, not just for democracy, but for the rule of law. We are happy because the courts have once again demonstrated their relevance in our democratic process,” he said.
Other parties speak
The Acting National Chairman of the Coalition of United Political Parties, Peter Ameh, took a philosophical approach in welcoming the ruling, invoking the words of the philosopher Edmund Burke to frame the significance of the appellate court’s intervention.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” Ameh said.
He warned that what he described as hostile executive rascality and brazen judicial overreach must not be allowed to stand.
Also, the ADC presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar said in a statement posted on his X handle that the ruling was a positive development, noting with particular significance that INEC itself had initiated the application for the stay .
“I welcome the Court of Appeal’s decision to stay the execution of the Federal High Court judgment seeking the deregistration of our great party, the ADC, and four other political parties. It is particularly significant that INEC itself initiated the application for the stay,” he wrote.
Atiku, Mark protest
The former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar also criticised what he described as judicial contradictions in the ongoing legal dispute, warning that such developments had placed the judiciary under intense public scrutiny.
“The disturbing spectacle of judicial contradictions and politically charged rulings playing out in our courts has placed the judiciary under intense public scrutiny. As ADC National Chairman, Sen. David Mark, rightly observed, the judiciary itself is now on trial,” Atiku said.
He warned against any attempt to weaponise the courts against Nigeria’s democratic institutions.
“Any attempt to undermine Nigeria’s hard-won democracy through judicial manipulation is a grave danger to the Republic. If our democracy suffers further injury, history will demand accountability from those entrusted with dispensing justice,” he said.
Following the judgment given by Justice Lifu, the National Judicial Council has been urged to investigate Justice Peter Lifu over his decision to deliver judgment in a case that was already before the Court of Appeal.
The civil society organisation, Tap Initiative for FOR Citizens’ Development, on Tuesday in a statement called on the leadership of the judiciary to immediately investigate Justice Lifu over the judgment.
The call follows concerns over the alleged disregard for the hierarchy of courts and implications such actions could have on the judiciary and Nigeria’s democracy as the country moves closer to the 2027 general elections.
Justice Lifu had on Monday ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission to deregister five political parties over their alleged breach of Section 225(A) of the Constitution.
However, the judgment was reportedly delivered despite an order staying proceedings issued by the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal on May 22.
The decision has since attracted criticism from several quarters, with critics accusing the judge of undermining democratic principles.
In a statement signed by its Executive Director, Mbasekei Martin Obono, the group urged the NJC to, among other things, “Determine whether the decision was delivered in disregard of pending appellate proceedings and a subsisting order of stay;
“Examine possible breaches of the judicial code of conduct; Take appropriate disciplinary action if misconduct is established; and
Reaffirm the authority of appellate courts and the supremacy of due process within the judiciary”.
The group recalled that the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, had consistently emphasised the need for accountability, discipline and ethical conduct within the judiciary.
It disclosed that it had formally petitioned the CJN, in her capacity as Chairman of the NJC, seeking an investigation and possible disciplinary action against Justice Lifu.
According to the group, the petition presents an opportunity to reinforce the principles of accountability and demonstrate that judicial independence is not incompatible with responsibility.
“Tap Initiative expresses grave concern that at the time the said judgement was delivered, there were subsisting appellate proceedings before the Court of Appeal in respect of the same subject matter in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/569/2026. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal had issued an Enrolment Order expressly granting a stay of proceedings in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2025, being the very proceedings in which the Federal High Court subsequently proceeded to deliver judgment.
“This development raises profound constitutional and procedural concerns, as it appears that a valid order of stay and active appellate proceedings were in force at the material time. If established, this situation would constitute a serious affront to the doctrine of judicial hierarchy and the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal within Nigeria’s constitutional order.
“Tap Initiative emphasizes that the integrity of Nigeria’s justice system depends fundamentally on strict adherence to judicial hierarchy, procedural discipline, and respect for appellate authority. Any deviation from these principles risks creating conflicting judicial outcomes, eroding legal certainty, and undermining public confidence in the courts”, he said.
The group stressed that the judiciary remains the last hope of the common citizen, arguing that its legitimacy is sustained not only by constitutional authority but also by unwavering public confidence in its fairness, discipline and respect for the rule of law.
It therefore called on the NJC to treat the matter with the urgency and seriousness it deserves in the interest of justice, democracy and national stability.
Meanwhile, the National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress, Senator David Mark, on Tuesday declared that the Nigerian judiciary, rather than the opposition party, is the institution facing scrutiny over the controversy surrounding the deregistration of the ADC and four other political parties.
Speaking at the ADC Strategic Communications Retreat in Abuja, the former Senate President accused the judiciary of actions capable of undermining public confidence in the nation’s democratic process, while questioning the conduct of Justice Peter Lifu in matters relating to the party.
According to Mark, the outcome of the controversy will test the credibility of the judiciary and the ability of the National Judicial Council to address concerns arising from the case.
“The ADC is not on trial. Rather, it is the judiciary that is on trial and the nation is waiting to see how the National Judicial Council is going to handle this precarious situation,” he said.
The ADC chairman expressed concern over what he described as unprecedented judicial actions, alleging that Justice Lifu ignored an order of the Court of Appeal directing a stay of proceedings in the matter.
He said it was difficult to comprehend how a judge could be involved in actions that appeared to contradict existing court directives.
Mark further alleged that the judge issued conflicting decisions regarding the status of the party within a short period.
“It is strange that a judge can order the Independent National Electoral Commission to pronounce a party dead and in less than 24 hours put the same party on trial,” he said.
The remarks come amid growing political tension over recent legal challenges affecting opposition parties ahead of preparations for the next electoral cycle.
Despite the legal setback, Mark urged party members not to lose confidence in the ADC, insisting that the party would emerge stronger from the dispute.
“Like I have said previously, our members should not worry about the shenanigans of the ruling party. We will go through all these turbulence because we are up to the task. By the time we are through all these, ADC will come out stronger,” he stated.
The former Senate President also accused the ruling All Progressives Congress APC of attempting to weaken opposition forces through distractions, claiming that the governing party was struggling to defend its record in office.
He alleged that the President Bola Tinubu-led government is diverting attention from its challenges by targeting opposition platforms.
Addressing party communicators at the retreat, Mark charged them to craft messages capable of expanding the ADC’s appeal across political divides, including among members of the ruling party.
He challenged the communications team to develop persuasive narratives that would attract more Nigerians to the ADC project. (PUNCH)
Former Governor of Enugu State, Rt. Hon. Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi, has dismissed as false and misleading reports circulating on social media alleging that he is supporting the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Barr. Nestor Ezeme, in the forthcoming Enugu North Senatorial District bye-election.
In a statement personally signed by him, Ugwuanyi described the claim as fake news orchestrated by political mischief makers seeking to gain undue advantage ahead of the poll scheduled for Saturday, June 20, 2026.
The former governor, who is now a member of the All Progressives Congress (APC), stated that he has no reason to support a candidate from another political party, stressing that his loyalty remains with the APC and all its candidates.
“As a committed member of the APC, I have no business supporting the candidate of another party. My support is firmly and unequivocally for all APC candidates, from the President down to the Councillor,” Ugwuanyi stated.
He specifically reaffirmed his support for the APC candidate in the Enugu North Senatorial bye-election, Chief Ikeje Asogwa, noting that his position on the contest has never been in doubt.
“I stand by Chief Ikeje Asogwa and my party, the APC. Any claim to the contrary is fake news and should be dismissed and disregarded by the public,” he said.
Ugwuanyi further alleged that the rumours were being spread by individuals bent on deceiving the electorate through name-dropping and misinformation.
“These false reports are the handiwork of mischief makers who have resorted to propaganda and deception in pursuit of electoral gains. The people should not be misled,” he added.
The former governor therefore urged members of the public and supporters across the Enugu North Senatorial District to disregard the reports and remain focused on the issues ahead of the election.
Nollywood actor and politician Kenneth Okonkwo has withdrawn his support for former Vice President Atiku Abubakar following the announcement of former Transport Minister, Rotimi Amaechi, as his vice presidential running mate.
Okonkwo made his position known in a statement issued on his X (formerly Twitter) account on Monday, shortly after reports emerged that Atiku had selected Amaechi as his running mate for the 2027 presidential election.
The former Labour Party chieftain said he could not, in good conscience, campaign for any presidential ticket that excludes the South-East from both the presidential and vice-presidential positions.
“If it is confirmed that he has chosen a candidate from the South-South, I wish him well. I am not favourably disposed to campaigning for any presidential ticket that does not have a person of South-East origin as President or Vice in 2027,” Okonkwo stated.
His remarks effectively distance him from Atiku’s campaign and signal a major crack within the opposition coalition ahead of the 2027 general election.
Okonkwo argued that the South-East has remained politically disadvantaged since the return of democracy in 1999, noting that the region has neither produced a President nor a Vice President during the period.
“This Geo-Political Zone has neither produced a President or Vice President since 1999. To deny the South-East the opportunity to produce the President or Vice President in ADC in 2027 will amount to perpetuating the marginalisation,” he said.
The lawyer and political activist expressed disappointment over reports that the vice-presidential slot may have been ceded to the South-South despite the sacrifices made by leaders from the South-East in building and sustaining the coalition.
“I heard from the social media that ADC has picked its vice presidential candidate from the South-South. If this is true, it is unfortunate, as this will continue the crude marginalisation of the South-East,” he said.
Okonkwo recalled that the ADC was founded by former National Chairman, Chief Ralphs Nwosu, an indigene of the South-East, and argued that the party’s coalition arrangement was never intended to sideline the region.
“The ADC was founded by Ralphs Nwosu from the South-East in 2005. He made the sacrifice to give up the party in 2025 for the coalition to usher in a better Nigeria. He couldn’t have made that sacrifice to marginalise his own people,” he stated.
According to him, the South-East had already relinquished key positions within the coalition and deserved consideration for the vice-presidential slot.
“I did not join the coalition to assist in the further marginalisation of my own people. I am of the opinion that if we made a sacrifice to give up the National Chairman and the President, it will amount to unpardonable injustice to deny us the Vice President in 2027,” he said.
Okonkwo further disclosed that his only request to Atiku was to demonstrate his commitment to the political inclusion of the South-East by choosing a running mate from the region.
“The only favour I asked Atiku Abubakar, who openly declared that he is the pathway to the presidency of the South-East, is to show it by choosing someone from the South-East to be his Vice,” he stated.
He maintained that his political involvement has always been driven by the desire to build a Nigeria where no region, ethnic group or individual is marginalised.
“I joined politics to fight for a better Nigeria where no region, Geo-Political Zone, or person will be marginalised,” he added.
His declaration is expected to fuel fresh debate over zoning, equity and power-sharing within the opposition coalition as preparations intensify for the 2027 presidential election.
-
Politics2 days agoCourt orders INEC to deregister ADC, Accord, three others
-
News2 days ago
Popular Businessman dies in captivity despite ₦5 million ransom payment
-
News3 days ago
Leave Enugu or face the music, Mbah warns criminal elements as Security Forces nab 6 notorious gunmen, recover caches of arms, ammunition
-
News2 days ago
Troops rescue Widow of late Major General Rabe Abubakar
-
News2 days ago
Over 50 Bandit Attacks Recorded in a Week as FG Spends N57.78bn on Security
-
News3 days ago
Bandits kill three, burn houses in Niger – Police
-
News3 days ago
Anambra govt arrests Pastor accused of converting 75 women as wives
-
News2 days ago
Insecurity: Ministers, Senators, Governors may become targets — Buratai warns
