Category: South East

• By Adolphus Ude

A lot of sentiments have been expressed by some individuals particularly, of persons of Igbo origin, attacking the former campaign spokesman of President Bola Tinubu, Dr. Josef Onoh on his defenses of the Tinubu administration.

I’ve been provoked by the sentimental attacks, and I wish to submit, subtly, that as a proud son of Igbo land and a committed Nigerian, Onoh’s steadfast support for Presiden Tinubu reflects not only his personal conviction but also the enduring values of unity, integrity, and dedication to Nigeria’s progress that he has upheld throughout his political journey. 

The assertion that loyalty and respect are absent from Igbo culture is a stereotype that crumbles under the weight of history and evidence. The Igbo people have consistently demonstrated unwavering commitment to shared causes, from the sacrifices of our forebears in Nigeria’s struggle for independence to the resilience shown in rebuilding the Igbo communities in post-Nigeria civil war. 

Although the average Igbo tends to react with emotions in their political choices rather than calculated strategies, which has continuously jeopardized our political progress, Onoh’s loyalty to President Tinubu is a continuation of this legacy—a deliberate choice rooted in the belief that Tinubu’s vision for a united, prosperous Nigeria aligns with the aspirations of all Nigerians, including the Igbo.

As the Southeast spokesman for the All Progressives Congress (APC) during the 2023 presidential campaign, Onoh championed President Tinubu’s agenda not out of blind allegiance or reward of a political appointment but from a deep-seated conviction in his capacity to address Nigeria’s challenges, including the marginalization concerns of the Southeast. 

His role as Executive Chairman of the Enugu Capital Territory Development Authority and his earlier service in the Enugu State House of Assembly demonstrate his commitment to transformative leadership and public service—values that mirror the President’s dedication to national renewal. 

Onoh’s decision to support the APC and President Tinubu, despite his roots in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), was not a betrayal of heritage as he was constantly accused of by almost all south Easterns, but a bold step toward fostering inclusivity and collaboration across Nigeria’s diverse regions.

Loyalty, for Onoh, is not mere deference but a principled stand to uphold what is just and progressive. It is the same loyalty that drove him to advocate for infrastructure development in Enugu, such as the modernization of the Akanu Ibiam International Airport and urban decongestion projects, ensuring that the Southeast contributes to and benefits from Nigeria’s growth. 

Read Also: Obienyem’s criticism on Onoh, not answer to issues raised

His Igbo heritage, far from lacking respect or loyalty, is defined by a culture of resilience, community, and honor—qualities he brought to his support for President Tinubu’s administration. He stands by Tinubu as a partner in building a Nigeria where every region thrives, proving that loyalty is not only part of Igbo culture but a cornerstone of the Igbo contribution to the nation’s greatness irrespective of the name callings and negativity he is currently receiving from various quarters.

Smear campaigns and threats especially from my Igbo brothers and sisters for his defense for the president against the statements of Rt. Hon. Chibuike Amaechi whom I know Onoh holds in high esteem together with His Excellency, Mr. Peter Obi; it doesn’t restrain his decision and choice to support, promote the policies, and defend the administration of President Tinubu until the end of his term as president of Nigeria. 

In Theodore Roosevelt Speech, ‘Citizenship in a Republic,’ delivered in 1910, Roosevelt said, “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who strives, who dares greatly, and who perseveres, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

Therefore, Onoh’s support for President Tinubu keeps a date with destiny and may be part of his legacy which will never be defined by reward or non reward with political appointments. It could rather be a legacy of loyalty and service to country at a period values have been eroded by political gratifications in place of integrity. Josef Onoh  remains his father’s son!

Comrade Ude, former APC chairman, writes from Enugu State

• By Adolphus Ude

Dear Mr Valentine Obienyem, your recent statement, widely circulated across media platforms, seeks to disparage the character and credibility of Dr. Josef Umunnakwe Onoh while defending Mr. Peter Obi’s political integrity. While your loyalty to your principal is commendable, the tone, content, and accusations leveled against Dr. Onoh are not only misleading but also steeped in a sanctimonious narrative that obfuscates the truth and seeks to elevate one man above scrutiny while unjustly vilifying another. Allow me to address your claims with the clarity and sobriety they demand.

First, your attempt to sanctify Mr. Obi’s relationship with the late Dim Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, while emotionally evocative, is a calculated distraction from the substantive issue at hand: Mr. Obi’s alleged commitment to a one-term presidency and whether he has honored promises made to revered figures like Ojukwu. 

Dr. Onoh’s critique, far from being a “cheap political commentary,” is a legitimate inquiry into the consistency of Mr. Obi’s public declarations. To dismiss this as “morally hollow” or “politically opportunistic” is to evade accountability by cloaking it in sentimentality. If, as you claim, Dr. Onoh’s invocation of Ojukwu’s name is distasteful, then you must equally condemn the frequent use of Ojukwu’s legacy by various political actors, including those in Mr. Obi’s camp, to bolster their narratives when convenient. The selective outrage here is telling.

Your vivid recounting of Mr. Obi’s visits to Ojukwu in a UK hospital and his role in organizing a befitting burial is noted. However, these acts of personal devotion, while admirable, do not immunize Mr. Obi from questions about his political promises. Respect for Ojukwu’s memory does not preclude scrutiny of whether commitments made in his name were upheld. You challenge Dr. Onoh to name specific promises Mr. Obi reneged on, yet you provide no substantive rebuttal to the core allegation regarding the one-term vow. Instead, you resort to emotional anecdotes and vague assertions of Mr. Obi’s moral clarity. 

If Dr. Onoh’s claims are baseless, as you assert, then the burden lies with you to clarify, with specificity, the nature of Mr. Obi’s commitments and their fulfillment, rather than deflecting with tales of hospital visits and funeral arrangements.

Your accusation that Dr. Onoh “did not even make a phone call” to Ojukwu or his family is a low blow, unbefitting the decorum you claim to uphold. Personal relationships, particularly those as private as familial ties, should not be weaponized for public spectacle. Dr. Onoh’s restraint in not parading his personal interactions with Ojukwu or his family does not equate to indifference or neglect. To suggest otherwise is to engage in the very “cheap political commentary” you decry. 

Furthermore, your attempt to shame Dr. Onoh for not matching Mr. Obi’s public displays of devotion is a distraction from the substantive issue of political accountability, which Dr. Onoh’s critique seeks to address.

Turning to your allegations of academic forgery and political inconsistency against Dr. Onoh, these are grave charges that demand evidence, not innuendo. You reference “questionable” certificates and “disputed” credentials without providing a shred of substantiation. Such accusations, if untrue, constitute defamation and undermine the moral high ground you claim to occupy. Dr. Onoh’s academic and professional record is a matter of public scrutiny, and if you possess credible evidence of malfeasance, it is your duty to present it rather than rely on insinuations. Dr. Onoh has been engaged in political activities since the days of GDM and has run for various public offices while serving both elective and appointed political offices up to running for the office of Governor of Enugu State in the 2023 election and his academic records have never been in question aside from the false claim you project without evidence just to deviate attention from the substantive questions posed to your principal. I’m sure all who knows, Dr. Onoh will definitely give your defamatory allegations the attention it deserves at a time of his choosing. 

Similarly, your characterization of Dr. Onoh’s political engagements as driven by “stomach infrastructure” is a tired trope, devoid of nuance, and dismissive of the complexities of political decision-making. Dr. Onoh’s support for any candidate or administration reflects the dynamic nature of political alliances, a reality Mr. Obi himself is not immune to, given his own transitions across party lines over the years.

Your critique of Dr. Onoh’s supposed volte-face on the Tinubu administration is equally disingenuous. Political discourse thrives on the ability to reassess positions based on evolving realities. If Dr. Onoh has expressed disillusionment with any administration, it is a reflection of critical engagement, not opportunism. To castigate him for this while ignoring Mr. Obi’s own political maneuvers—such as his departure from the PDP to the Labour Party—reveals a double standard. Political consistency is not servitude to a single cause but the ability to adapt to the needs of the moment while maintaining one’s principles. 

Read Also: Onoh mourns victims of Ghana helicopter crash

Dr. Onoh’s public utterances, which you label “abrasive” and “immature,” are better described as forthright and unapologetic—a necessary counterbalance to the often sanitized rhetoric of political elites.

On the matter of Mr. Obi’s one-term vow, your defense hinges on the constitutional permissibility of such a commitment and its alignment with principles of equity and zoning. While the Constitution indeed allows for a renewable four-year term, the issue is not one of legality but of trust. A public commitment to a single term, if made, is a pledge to the electorate, not a mere constitutional exercise. Dr. Onoh’s inquiry into whether Mr. Obi has wavered on this promise is a legitimate question of political integrity, not an attack on his character. Your dismissal of this critique as “ironic and offensive” sidesteps the need for transparency. If Mr. Obi’s record “speaks for itself,” as you claim, then let it speak through clear evidence of his adherence to this vow, rather than through rhetorical flourishes.

Finally, your assertion that Dr. Onoh “lacks the moral standing” to critique Mr. Obi is a presumptuous judgment that undermines the principles of open discourse. In a democratic society, no one is above scrutiny, and no one’s character is so pristine as to render their critics morally deficient by default. Dr. Onoh, like any citizen, has the right to question the actions and promises of public figures, particularly those who aspire to the highest offices in the land. To suggest otherwise is to elevate Mr. Obi to an untouchable pedestal, which is antithetical to the accountability you claim to champion.

In conclusion, Mr. Obienyem, your statement is a masterclass in deflection, weaving emotional narratives and personal attacks to obscure the substantive issues raised by Dr. Onoh. If you seek to defend Mr. Obi’s integrity, do so with facts, not sanctimony. Dr. Onoh’s critique, far from being opportunistic, is a call for accountability—a call that deserves a response grounded in evidence, not vitriol. The Nigerian public, whom you both claim to serve, deserves nothing less.