When "Fair" Stops Meaning Anything
There is a particular kind of sentence that sounds like a shrug but is actually a confession. President Bola Tinubu produced one of those recently, telling Catholic bishops gathered to plead for credible elections that "all is fair in politics, and there is equal opportunity" — before adding, with the swagger of a man who mistook a warning for a compliment, that he wouldn't "offer them a red carpet" and would "wrestle" his rivals "to the finishing point."
It read, in the moment, like bravado. No, it should be read as something closer to a plan.
Consider what the bishops actually asked for. They didn't request a fistfight metaphor. They asked, plainly, for the strengthening of democratic institutions and assurance that the 2027 vote would be credible — a request that only makes sense against a backdrop where the opposition already accuses INEC and state institutions of being used to intimidate them. The president's answer to an institutional question was a personal one. That swap is the whole story.
"All is fair" is a phrase borrowed from war and love precisely because both are understood as domains where the normal rules are suspended by consent of all parties. An election is the opposite kind of contest. Its legitimacy depends entirely on the rules binding everyone equally — especially the incumbent, who alone commands the security services, the civil service, and outsized influence over the electoral commission's conduct. When that incumbent announces there are no rules, he isn't describing a level playing field. He's describing the absence of one, from the only vantage point that matters.
Cardinal Onaiyekan, who sat in that meeting, understood this immediately: if everything is permitted provided you win, he said, "there is a problem." A human rights lawyer went further, warning the remark risks becoming an "open cheque" for intimidation and political violence — because how, exactly, is a zealous supporter supposed to distinguish permissible hardball from impermissible thuggery when the president himself has erased the line?
This is the real cost of the statement. Nigeria's electoral trust deficit isn't hypothetical or historical — it is live, and it is precisely why the bishops raised the subject at all. Into that fragile environment, the president didn't offer reassurance. He offered a philosophy that collapses the distinction between winning and winning by any means, then paired it with a flat denial that INEC has ever intimidated anybody — as if the two claims didn't sit in obvious tension with each other.
None of this requires bad faith to be dangerous. Leaders often reach for combative language to sound resolute rather than vulnerable. But resolve and impunity are not the same posture, and in a country where incumbency already tilts every table, a president gets to choose which one his words signal. President Tinubu chose the one that tells 2027's losing side, in advance, not to expect the process to have protected them.
That is not a threat. It's a preview.
@Big_marvis If this is what will make him loose, you should be happy naa. Why e dey pain you. The bigger person na our own. The smaller person na our own. How e take concern you naa? Leave the headache, leave the panadol, we will be OK.
The DG of NIMC is now the the DG of APC data management of APC campaign committee and the DG of National Revenue Service, the DDG of campaign fund raising. 😂😂😂. Free and fair election banza.
@OchiJnr When they say 'power is not served on a platter'. The people decide will have no option than to say '... or nothing'. @PeterObi just happens to be the prefix to '... or nothing', not by his own making, but by the sheer will of the people, bottom up.
I am beginning to think that when Obidients and other well-meaning Nigerians declared "Obi or nothing," the establishment politicians assumed it was Obi telling them what to say. I don't think they understand what's going on.
Let me explain this for those at the back.
"Obi or nothing" was not handed down from above. It came from the ground: young people trying to find their way in a broken job market, market women squeezed by inflation, civil servants stretched thin by unpaid salaries and unstable systems, artisans and okada riders, students, creatives, diaspora Nigerians sending money home while watching from a distance, victims of kidnapping and their relatives, and victims of unfair taxes and failed healthcare, widows of fallen soldiers, and unpaid military pensioners, all tired of choosing between bad and worse, election after election.
That's what the establishment misses. They keep hunting for a puppet master or godfather. But nobody told anyone what to say. Millions arrived at the same conclusion on their own: they were done settling and managing like their parents did for 20, 30, 40 years!
"Or nothing" isn't a threat. It's a boundary. No more "wait your turn." No more "be realistic." If the choice is real change or more of the same, the people choose real change, or they choose to withhold support entirely.
That kind of movement doesn't need a director. It sustains itself because people believe it, not because someone is paying them to say it.
It's a paid job you are doing sir. Do not pretend otherwise. In your own words, 'you need to have the fear of God'. You told us how well you knew PMB and defended and was linient to his administration till the end. Infact, you have blamed all the bag eggs in PMB admin but have never blames him even in the face of obvious ineptitude and incompetence.
When "Fair" Stops Meaning Anything
There is a particular kind of sentence that sounds like a shrug but is actually a confession. President Bola Tinubu produced one of those recently, telling Catholic bishops gathered to plead for credible elections that "all is fair in politics, and there is equal opportunity" — before adding, with the swagger of a man who mistook a warning for a compliment, that he wouldn't "offer them a red carpet" and would "wrestle" his rivals "to the finishing point."
It read, in the moment, like bravado. No, it should be read as something closer to a plan.
Consider what the bishops actually asked for. They didn't request a fistfight metaphor. They asked, plainly, for the strengthening of democratic institutions and assurance that the 2027 vote would be credible — a request that only makes sense against a backdrop where the opposition already accuses INEC and state institutions of being used to intimidate them. The president's answer to an institutional question was a personal one. That swap is the whole story.
"All is fair" is a phrase borrowed from war and love precisely because both are understood as domains where the normal rules are suspended by consent of all parties. An election is the opposite kind of contest. Its legitimacy depends entirely on the rules binding everyone equally — especially the incumbent, who alone commands the security services, the civil service, and outsized influence over the electoral commission's conduct. When that incumbent announces there are no rules, he isn't describing a level playing field. He's describing the absence of one, from the only vantage point that matters.
Cardinal Onaiyekan, who sat in that meeting, understood this immediately: if everything is permitted provided you win, he said, "there is a problem." A human rights lawyer went further, warning the remark risks becoming an "open cheque" for intimidation and political violence — because how, exactly, is a zealous supporter supposed to distinguish permissible hardball from impermissible thuggery when the president himself has erased the line?
This is the real cost of the statement. Nigeria's electoral trust deficit isn't hypothetical or historical — it is live, and it is precisely why the bishops raised the subject at all. Into that fragile environment, the president didn't offer reassurance. He offered a philosophy that collapses the distinction between winning and winning by any means, then paired it with a flat denial that INEC has ever intimidated anybody — as if the two claims didn't sit in obvious tension with each other.
None of this requires bad faith to be dangerous. Leaders often reach for combative language to sound resolute rather than vulnerable. But resolve and impunity are not the same posture, and in a country where incumbency already tilts every table, a president gets to choose which one his words signal. President Tinubu chose the one that tells 2027's losing side, in advance, not to expect the process to have protected them.
That is not a threat. It's a preview.
@ameh_dele83800@DeeOneAyekooto Your error is that you think 2027 is about party. It is the lived experiences of the people vs grandstanding. Again, what is the value in salaries that get knocked out by inflation. Live experiences mate. That's what it is.
@davido does not enjoy enjoy free state services(police, army, dss etc). He pays for the protection he gets. He does not spend government money forming movements here and there. Nobody hates Seyi. We only don't like the idea of campaigning for a dead horse. And, thunder knows where you stand. It is coming soon.
You all are making a mistake thinking 2027 is about @PeterObi and @Pbat. No it's about Nigerians and President Tinubu. It is about growth shown on graphs vs lived experiences of Nigerians. It's about grandstanding vs connecting with reality. It's is not even about party. Some APC governors are doing OK. It's about power of the people vs the power of elected people. @PeterObi is that symbol of the power of the people. He is not a messiah, nobody is. The power is beyond him.
@Big_marvis When the people speak, every rigging strategy bows. Nigerians will speak in 2027. If una like, use CNN, BBC and Reuters studio as situation room. Dem go all turn confusion room. 2027 will be about lived experience vs graphs.