On January 30, 2023, I had a conversation with a Cameroonian friend over the phone, during which he inquired about my hypothetical choice for the upcoming Presidential Election in Nigeria. Specifically, he wanted to know which candidate I would support if I were in Nigeria. Our lengthy discussion primarily revolved around my reservations regarding Peter Obi, the Labor Party candidate, whom my friend considered the best candidate for Nigeria. I explained my perspective, which remains unchanged to this day: I do not support Peter Obi due to my belief that he is among the politicians who have contributed to the country’s problems. I pointed out that Peter Obi was previously a member of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), and his switch to the Labor Party after being denied the PDP’s Presidential ticket did not automatically make him a true democrat. In my view, he is essentially a PDP member masquerading in Labor Party attire.

Two years prior to the Presidential Election, I expressed my preference on Facebook, asserting that Nigeria should not present a candidate like Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu when it has individuals like Professor Yemi Osinbajo, Prof. Charles Soludo, Dr. Ngozi Iweala, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, Nasir El-Rufai, and others. I pointed out that Tinubu had certain moral issues, such as the forfeiture of a significant sum of money to the US government, which was linked to allegations of involvement in narcotics, and questions about his educational background that had arisen when he ran for the Governorship of Lagos State years ago. In my various writings on the subject, I acknowledged that while Tinubu might not have had criminal liability in these cases, he did have moral concerns that needed to be addressed to gain the trust of people like me.

It is worth noting that Tinubu has since been elected President and began his tenure on May 29, 2023.

Following Tinubu’s electoral victory, several developments have led me to shift from an anti-Tinubu stance to a pro-Tinubu stance. Chief among the reasons for this change is the “Lagos Is A No-Man’s Land” narrative, which attempts to argue that because Lagos was originally Nigeria’s capital territory, it belongs to all Nigerians rather than solely to the Yoruba people. The controversy that emerged after the Governorship election in Lagos State was the tipping point for my change of perspective. In my writings for “Nigeria In Depth,” an online news media outlet, I emphasized that Lagos rightfully belongs to the Yoruba people, and the historical fact that a portion of it once served as the country’s capital does not negate the Yoruba people’s rightful claim to their heritage.

These differing viewpoints sparked significant debates. In a U.S.-based organization representing Nigerians in America, which was established to network with other Nigerians in the Diaspora, individuals of Igbo descent and supporters of Peter Obi vehemently criticized my stance, with some even resorting to threats against me. My Facebook posts were shared on Twitter, accumulating over 6 million retweets and comments. At the height of this controversy, many Nigerians contacted my employers, urging that I be dismissed from my position. I received numerous threatening phone calls at my office, including death threats and threats of physical violence.

To many of these individuals, my support for Tinubu over Peter Obi was deemed wrong. Despite my attempts to highlight the inconsistency in their arguments, they were determined to recruit me to Peter Obi’s camp against my will. Essentially, they were denying me the same right they claimed for themselves—the right to choose. Throughout this ordeal, I consistently emphasized that making claims is easy and inexpensive, but providing evidence is crucial and the only factor that could alter my perspective on the outcome of the Presidential election.

The validation of my point on the importance of evidence in any claim-making endeavor came with the Presidential Election Petition tribunal upholding Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s electoral victory. Even if the petitioners were to approach the Supreme Court, the significance of evidence in substantiating claims would remain unchanged. It is not feasible to assert that elections were rigged or that the Biometric Verification and Authentication System (BVAS) was not used when the available facts point in a different direction.

Nigeria, a nation celebrated for its rich cultural diversity and intricate political landscape, has encountered numerous challenges throughout its history. One notable issue that has come to the forefront following the judgment of the petition tribunal is post-election harassment, a concern that has the potential to undermine confidence in the unity of Nigeria.

Post-election harassment in Nigeria encompasses various actions and behaviors occurring after electoral processes. These actions include political violence, intimidation targeting opponents, and the harassment of opposition candidates and their supporters. Such harassment has persistently marred Nigeria’s electoral history, often driven by political rivalries, ethnic tensions, and power struggles.

It is undeniable that the post-election harassment that unfolded after the presidential election reached an alarming level. Unfortunately, one of the primary casualties of this harassment was the integrity of the electoral process itself. When allegations of election misconduct lack substantiated evidence, it further polarizes the nation. The proliferation of social media exacerbates this issue. The Biometric Verification and Authentication System (BVAS) and the Independent Results Entry and Verification (IREV) played significant roles in minimizing electoral irregularities in the last election. Regrettably, these achievements were overshadowed by irrelevant distractions. To individuals like Peter Obi and his supporters, BVAS and IREV were expected to transmit election results in real-time, a function not within their intended purpose. As demonstrated in court, not only was Obi’s stance incorrect, but it also lacked legal foundation.

Despite the fact that claims of election-related violence and vote manipulation were more vocal than the evidence presented, they successfully cast doubt on an election that was conducted fairly and legitimately. This has resulted in the erosion of the democratic progress made over the past two decades. In the next election, this loss of trust is likely to lead to reduced voter turnout, apathy, and a general disillusionment with the belief that their votes can instigate meaningful change.

Nigeria is a nation characterized by its diverse population, consisting of various ethnic and regional groups, each with its distinct cultural identity and political interests. Post-election harassment exacerbates pre-existing divisions along ethnic and regional lines. This phenomenon was notably observed during the Governorship Election, particularly in Lagos State, where political actors exploited these divisions, using divisive rhetoric and strategies to deepen ethnic and regional fault lines. As discussed in my controversial Facebook post, when individuals feel that their ethnic group is unfairly targeted or marginalized in the electoral process, it fosters resentment and distrust among different segments of the population. The assertion that Lagos belongs to all Nigerians, not just the Yoruba, persists and may lead to policy changes that could adversely affect non-Yoruba residents in Lagos and other states in Southwest Nigeria.

In historical context, post-election harassment has frequently escalated into widespread social unrest and violence, including riots, protests, and communal clashes. It is hoped that, with the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, incidents that could pose a threat to lives and property and further erode the belief in Nigeria’s unity and stability will not become commonplace.

The faith in Nigeria’s indivisibility is closely tied to the concept of a unified national identity. When post-election harassment generates a climate of political instability and insecurity, it can challenge the notion of a cohesive Nigerian identity. Citizens may begin to question whether they genuinely share common values, goals, and a collective vision for the nation. This can weaken the bonds that hold Nigeria together as a unified entity.

In light of current circumstances, I have become increasingly cautious about accepting friend requests on Facebook, often declining requests from profiles with Igbo-sounding names. This reflects not only my experience but that of many others. Despite serving as the inaugural President of the Nigerians in America Organization (NAO), I decided to withdraw my membership due to the harassment endured. I have also unfriended numerous schoolmates and friends from the early 1990s and made clandestine visits to Nigeria, driven by fear of physical harm or even death, which has eroded my faith in the country’s unity.

Post-election harassment has not only undermined my trust in people from other ethnic backgrounds but is also a potent threat to our shared national identity. To address this issue and preserve Nigeria’s unity, it is imperative to prioritize electoral reforms, champion transparency, and cultivate a political climate that values inclusivity and peaceful coexistence. Only through these efforts can Nigeria rebuild faith in its indivisibility and fortify its democratic foundations.