By Tony Okafor
The repeated disruptions to the movements of Peter Obi, presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), are deeply disturbing.
In April 2025, Obi’s planned visit to internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Benue State was halted after the state government cited security and protocol concerns.
The outcome of the investigation into the February 2026 incident in Benin City—where armed men reportedly attacked a political gathering involving Obi and other African Democratic Congress (ADC) leaders, with gunfire and vandalism reported around the residence of former Edo State Governor, Chief John Odigie-Oyegun—is yet to be made public.
On Tuesday, September 8, 2026, his convoy was reportedly stopped in Makurdi by youths chanting, “Peter Obi, go back,” as he attempted to visit Yelwata to commiserate with families affected by the massacre there.
The Benue State Government has denied involvement, describing Obi’s allegation as unfounded and even questioning whether he was in Makurdi.
That response raises another troubling question: If the government did not know whether a presidential candidate was in its state, what became of the state’s security architecture?
More troubling still are reported warnings by certain characters that Obi should not campaign in specific geopolitical zones or areas. Such threats, irrespective of who makes them or the political interests behind them, are fundamentally at odds with the principles of constitutional democracy.
Nigeria’s Constitution guarantees citizens freedom of movement and peaceful assembly, while the Electoral Act provides the legal framework for political parties and candidates to campaign.
No individual, group or self-appointed political gatekeeper has the legal authority to declare any part of Nigeria a “no-go area” for a presidential candidate—or for any Nigerian.
Legitimate security concerns may require the authorities to regulate the timing, route or manner of a political event. They cannot, however, become a pretext for intimidation, partisan exclusion or the forcible denial of a candidate’s lawful political activities.
Where genuine security concerns exist, the responsibility belongs to the appropriate security agencies—not political thugs—to protect lives and maintain order.
Nigeria cannot afford to enter the 2027 elections with intimidation, obstruction and political thuggery becoming the new normal.
Democracy dies quietly when political violence becomes routine and society learns to shrug.
A presidential candidate should be able to enter any Nigerian state, mourn with victims, meet citizens and campaign peacefully. No group of thugs—whether sponsored, tolerated or acting independently—has the authority to determine who may enter a Nigerian community.
The federal security agencies must therefore investigate these incidents impartially and make their findings public. If criminal elements were involved, they should be identified and prosecuted according to law, regardless of their political affiliation, connections or sponsors.
The time for politically convenient denials is over.
We also call on the international democratic community to pay close attention to Nigeria’s democratic trajectory. Its concern should not be about which candidate wins, but whether Nigerians are allowed to choose freely, safely and without intimidation.
This is not about Obi.It is about Nigeria.
Enough is enough.
