Reno Omokri, a former presidential aide and staunch critic of Peter Obi, has publicly condemned the Labour Party’s 2023 presidential candidate for his silence following the conviction of Simon Ekpa, a Nigerian-Finnish separatist, on terrorism-related charges. Ekpa, a self-proclaimed disciple of Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), was sentenced to six years in prison by a Finnish court for his role in inciting violence and promoting the secessionist Biafra agenda in southeastern Nigeria. Omokri’s criticism hinges on what he perceives as Obi’s inconsistent stance on matters of law and order, particularly concerning individuals associated with the Biafra cause.
Omokri highlights Obi’s previous call for the arrest and prosecution of Fuji musician King Wasiu Ayinde Marshall (KWAM 1) following an altercation with ValueJet airline. He contrasts this with Obi’s purportedly more lenient stance towards Nnamdi Kanu, whose trial Obi deemed nonsensical. Omokri accuses Obi of applying double standards, demanding swift justice for KWAM 1 while seemingly advocating for Kanu’s release. This, according to Omokri, reveals a hypocrisy in Obi’s approach to legal matters, depending on the individual involved and their affiliation with the Biafra movement.
Furthermore, Omokri speculates that Obi’s silence on Ekpa’s conviction stems from the fact that the trial and sentencing occurred in Finland. He contends that if Ekpa had been convicted in Nigeria under President Bola Tinubu’s administration, Obi would have likely accused Tinubu of ethnic victimization and intolerance. Omokri suggests that Obi’s silence is a tacit acknowledgment of the validity of the charges against Ekpa, a position he wouldn’t dare take publicly for fear of alienating his support base within the Igbo community, some of whom sympathize with the Biafra cause. Omokri concludes with a sarcastic jab, implying that Obi is perhaps “in mourning” over Ekpa’s conviction, further emphasizing his perceived hypocrisy.
The core of Omokri’s argument revolves around the idea that Obi’s responses to legal proceedings and pronouncements on justice are politically motivated and influenced by ethnic considerations. He portrays Obi as someone who selectively applies principles of law and order, advocating for strict adherence when it suits his political narrative and remaining silent or critical when individuals aligned with his perceived political base are involved. This, in Omokri’s view, exposes a lack of integrity and principled leadership in Obi.
It is important to note that this is a one-sided perspective presented by a known critic of Peter Obi. While Obi’s public statements on these matters are available for scrutiny, it is difficult to ascertain his precise motivations and thoughts without further context and his direct response to these accusations. Omokri’s claims should be considered within the framework of his established critical stance towards Obi and the ongoing political discourse surrounding Biafra separatism in Nigeria.
Omokri’s commentary highlights the complex and often contentious relationship between ethnic identity, political allegiances, and perceptions of justice within the Nigerian context. His criticism of Obi leverages these sensitivities to paint a picture of political opportunism and inconsistency. Whether or not these accusations are accurate, they contribute to a broader debate about the role of ethnicity in Nigerian politics and its impact on public discourse surrounding issues of law, justice, and national unity. Ultimately, the veracity of Omokri’s claims remains open to interpretation and further analysis by observers of the Nigerian political landscape.
