A democracy is tested not by how it treats those who govern, but by how it protects those who seek to replace them. That is why the recent alarm raised by Peter Obi, the 2027 presidential candidate for the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), that he may not be alive to contest the 2027 presidential election should not be dismissed as another episode in Nigeria’s increasingly rancorous political environment. They deserve to be treated as a serious security concern, irrespective of whether one agrees with his politics or his diagnosis of the current administration. In mature democracies, threats against major opposition figures are never evaluated through the prism of partisan convenience. They are assessed through the lens of national stability. The reason is simple. The attempted assassination, assassination or unexplained death of a credible opposition leader can plunge an entire nation into crisis, and even civil war. The current political climate; supercharged by inflation, subsidy removals, and deep systemic anxieties, cannot afford the volatile shockwave that an attack on a major opposition figure like Peter Obi would generate.
History offers sobering lessons. In America, the United States Secret Service extends protection not only to serving presidents but also to major presidential candidates once they become credible contenders. That principle was reinforced again during the 2024 election after assassination attempts against Donald Trump. Britain provides enhanced police protection to politicians facing elevated threats. Across Europe, intelligence agencies routinely monitor risks against opposition leaders because political violence is understood not merely as an attack on an individual but as an assault on democratic legitimacy itself. Nigeria should be no different.
Peter Obi is no fringe politician. He won millions of votes in the fiercely contested 2023 presidential election, retains a substantial national following and remains one of Nigeria’s most recognizable opposition figures. Whether he ultimately contests in 2027, or under whichever political platform he chooses, is secondary. What matters is that he occupies a position whose security implications extend well beyond personal safety. His allegation during an interview with Chude Jideonwo; that he fears he may not be alive by the next election and that government actions have systematically frustrated his activities, has naturally generated political controversy.
The response from the presidency was as predictable as it was unedifying. Bayo Onanuga, the President’s Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, immediately dismissed the fears as a “fabricated narrative” pulled straight from Obi’s “book of lies and propaganda.” This reaction demonstrates a profound failure to understand the basics of statecraft. When a man who commanded millions of votes in the previous electoral cycle; and who now commands the main opposition ticket alongside Rabiu Kwankwaso, voices credible concerns regarding his personal safety, a responsible government does not issue an emotional press release filled with insults. It takes immediate, visible steps to de-risk the environment. In modern political systems, the state holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Consequently, if any harm happens to a principal opposition leader during a highly charged electoral period, the blame falls squarely on the incumbent administration, regardless of the actual perpetrator. By treating Obi’s security anxieties as a mere public relations nuisance, the Tinubu administration is behaving with a dangerous complacency.
Governments do not provide security only to people whose fears they consider objectively proven. They provide security because the consequences of getting the assessment wrong are infinitely greater than the inconvenience of getting it right. Indeed, the Presidency should be the first institution to insist upon enhanced protection for Peter Obi. Not because it accepts his allegations, but because it has every interest in ensuring that no harm befalls him. Should anything happen to one of Nigeria’s foremost opposition figures, facts would almost certainly become secondary to perception. Rumors would spread with astonishing speed across social media. Political actors would weaponize the tragedy. International attention would intensify. The legitimacy of subsequent elections could be questioned before a single ballot was cast. Such scenarios are precisely what professional security planning seeks to prevent.
Nigeria hardly lacks historical reasons for caution. Its political history contains too many episodes in which violence has intersected with electoral competition. While contemporary Nigeria is vastly different from the turbulent First Republic, the lesson remains constant: democracies become fragile whenever opposition leaders believe the state cannot, or will not protect them. This is why security should never become a partisan privilege. Today it is Peter Obi. Tomorrow it may be another opposition figure. Eventually it could even be an incumbent leaving office. Democratic institutions cannot afford to distinguish between lives according to party affiliation.
There is also a practical consideration. Peter Obi himself has repeatedly complained about disruptions to his movements and public engagements. Whether every incident reflects bureaucratic overreach, overzealous local officials or mere administrative incompetence is almost beside the point. Visible, professional security arrangements reduce opportunities for misunderstanding, minimize exposure to hostile actors and reassure the public that the state remains an impartial guarantor of constitutional rights. None of this requires special political favor. It merely requires applying established risk-assessment principles to an individual whose public profile undeniably attracts both passionate supporters and equally passionate detractors. The real issue extends beyond Peter Obi.
Nigeria is gradually entering what promises to be one of its most competitive electoral cycles since the return to civilian rule in 1999. Political temperatures are already rising. Social media has magnified polarization. Economic hardship has heightened public frustration. Under such conditions, the security agencies should already be reviewing protection protocols for all nationally significant political figures, regardless of party. True democracies anticipate crises; they do not merely react to them. The Department of State Services, the Nigerian Police and other security agencies possess both the legal authority and operational capacity to conduct fresh threat assessments where circumstances warrant. Doing so should not be interpreted as validating Obi’s allegations. It should be recognized as prudent risk management.
There is another reason why the government should act decisively. President Bola Tinubu has consistently presented himself as a democrat shaped by the struggles against military rule. That democratic pedigree carries responsibilities as well as prestige. One of them is ensuring that opposition politicians enjoy the same constitutional freedoms that he himself demanded while in opposition. Nothing would strengthen Nigeria’s democratic credentials more than an administration that visibly protects its fiercest critics. The Presidency may sincerely believe Obi’s fears are exaggerated. It may regard his statements as political rhetoric. It is entitled to those opinions. What it cannot afford is complacency.
Security planning is built around possibilities, not certainties. After all, democracies are not judged by how loudly governments deny allegations. They are judged by how effectively institutions prevent avoidable tragedies. If Peter Obi remains safe, campaigns freely and contests future elections without intimidation, the greatest beneficiary will not be one politician or one political party. It will be Nigeria’s democracy itself. For republics survive not because governments protect their friends, but because they protect their rivals. That is the mark of democratic confidence. It is also the first duty of a state secure enough to tolerate dissent without fearing it. Ensuring Peter Obi’s safety is not an act of political generosity toward the NDC; it is a vital investment in the stability of the republic. If the administration wishes to project an image of a maturing democracy to the wider world, it must start by showing it can protect the very men who are trying to unse