Fresh cracks have emerged within the OK Movement, a political support platform established to mobilise backing for the joint ticket of the presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress, Peter Obi, and former Kano Governor Rabiu Kwankwaso, following a bitter leadership tussle that has triggered accusations, counter-accusations and competing claims to the group’s leadership.

The crisis escalated after the movement announced the appointment of former Inter-Party Advisory Council Chairman, Peter Ameh, as its National Director-General in a statement signed by Jackie Wayas.

Wayas, who identified herself as the National Convener of the movement, said the decision followed a meeting of its steering committee.

The former Deputy National Publicity Secretary of the African Democratic Congress added that Ameh’s appointment was unanimously approved because of his political experience and commitment to the ideals of the movement.

However, within hours of the announcement, the statement generated controversy after several members questioned Wayas’ authority to describe herself as the national convener of the movement.

Repeated efforts by The PUNCH to obtain clarification from Wayas on when and how she assumed the position were unsuccessful, as calls and messages sent to her were not returned as of the time of filing this report.

The controversy soon exposed a wider leadership dispute within the movement.

Speaking with our correspondent, the immediate past National Publicity Secretary of the movement, Justin Ijeh, acknowledged that disagreements existed but insisted they should be resolved internally rather than through the media.

He said, “There’s a reason I have not spoken up on this issue. I believe some things should be resolved behind the scenes. The primary target for me is that we must achieve our aim at the polls. I spoke to all the parties concerned about my concerns.

“It’s okay to fight. If you’re not fighting, you’re probably lying to yourselves. It’s not the worst thing that there are differences, but to let them come out into the public space is a big no-no for me.

“My principle on it is that we should not be discussing this thing in the public domain. People will always speculate and talk.

“As I said, these are issues that we need to go behind the scenes and resolve. We cannot be fighting a civil war when we have external aggression to deal with.

“The fact that this matter has come out makes it look larger than what it is because people are now talking about it.

“The truth is that it’s an internal dispute over how things are being done. People have different opinions, and then it goes into the mix. It’s not so much about secrecy.

“It’s about not allowing it to be detrimental to the larger cause. For me, the mission is to win elections.”

Continuing, Ijeh said differences were inevitable in political organisations and warned that allowing them to play out publicly could undermine the movement’s broader objective of winning elections.

According to him, he had stepped aside as spokesman pending the resolution of the dispute, noting that competing claims to the office of the Director-General had complicated the situation.

“I have told all parties that I cannot be the spokesperson anymore until they resolve issues. Tell me, when two persons declared themselves DG of an organisation, what do you do?

“I cannot even deny the fact that I know the Jackie Wayas you are talking about. She is also one of us,” he noted.

The movement’s Director-General, John Ughulu, however, dismissed Ijeh as a sacked official and accused the rival faction of attempting to hijack the organisation.

Ughulu maintained that the former spokesman no longer had the authority to speak for the organisation, adding that he had long been relieved of his position.

He said, “No, Justin has been sacked long ago. He belongs to the other group. I had relieved all of them of their responsibility for us to move forward.

“Their ideology is different from what I brought on board. Look, I want everybody to focus beyond the 2027 election, if by God’s grace, Peter Obi wins.”

Ughulu traced the origin of the movement to discussions aimed at creating a broader coalition capable of bringing together supporters of Obi and Kwankwaso under one umbrella without dissolving their existing political identities.

He disclosed that the arrangement was conceived as a long-term political platform rather than one that would automatically dissolve after the next election cycle.

“There was an initial agreement between the two candidates, Obi and Kwankwaso, that this OK Movement would not be relinquished. It would still have to campaign for him in 2031 if he decides to come out for the presidential position. I was a signatory to that.

“So when this latest internal conflict came up, Obi pleaded with me. He said, John, please, I beg you. Do not go to press. Do not say anything,” he said.

Ughulu accused rival members of attempting to take over the movement.

He also defended his decision to separate the leadership of the Obidients from that of the OK Movement, saying overlapping structures would create conflicts.

“The mistake I made was that when they were appointing leaders for me, I was in America, trying to establish the OK Movement in London. Then Justin was brought in as our publicity secretary. I knew he worked for the Obidient Movement.

“Obi himself had given the warning not to mix the two,” he said.

Ughulu further claimed that Obi had previously expressed concern over the absence of a formal leadership structure within the Obidient Movement.

He alleged that he had proposed different leadership arrangements before Yunusa Tanko eventually emerged in an acting capacity.

The Ok Movement DG also narrated disagreements involving prominent members of the movement and defended his role in building the coalition.

According to him, attempts had been made to portray him as someone working against Obi’s political interests.

Ughulu insisted that the OK Movement was conceived to broaden Obi’s support base beyond the Obidient Movement.

In his analysis, the movement was inspired by consultations with several political leaders, including former President Olusegun Obasanjo, the Secretary General of Afenifere and former DG of Obi-Datti Presidential Campaign Council, Akin Osuntokun.

He added that the name “OK Movement” was deliberately chosen to attract supporters outside the traditional Obidient base.

“There are people who so much love and want to support Peter Obi who are not Obidient members. If we decide to stick only to that, other associations and political parties will not want to associate with you.

“So, that was how we settled for the name, OK Movement,” he said.

He also defended his decision to disengage Ijeh.

“In the case of Justin, I had to sack him because of his partisanship. He was going beyond his responsibility as a publicist for the OK Movement and also aiding the narrative that I am against members of the Obidient Movement,” he said.

Similarly, Ughulu opened up on how he fell out with Jackie Wayas, the alleged national convener of the same movement.

He said, “The same Jackie they are parading now used to work for me. At a point, she was in the ADC as the National Deputy Publicity Secretary.

“By that time, the OK Movement had been established. What was the problem? People were bringing in illegal money. And I said, no, it’s not going to happen because you don’t know where the money is coming from.

“So I suggested we raise the funds from the streets by encouraging Nigerians to contribute N1,000 or N500 to take care of posters, T-shirts and logistics.

“Again, we agreed that we are not going to pay any of my coordinators.

“I made that clear right from the outset because I know that every coordinator I appointed has capacity. They are well-to-do on their own. But Jackie flared up and said no.”

Meanwhile, another layer of the controversy emerged following widespread social media reports alleging that Obi had dismissed the National Coordinator of the Obidient Movement Worldwide, Dr Tanko, over alleged financial impropriety, an allegation Tanko and Obi’s media office separately dismissed as false.

The reports further claimed that a replacement would soon be announced.

When contacted by The PUNCH, Tanko categorically denied the allegation.

He said, “No, it is not true. It is somebody out there just flying a kite. In fact, we are having a programme in the office tomorrow. I am using the opportunity to invite you to attend.

“Look, I don’t have a separate account. I’m not even a signatory to the account of the Obidient Movement. So, why should I even have a money-related matter?”

Reacting to claims of tension between the Obidient Movement and the OK Movement, Tanko insisted there was no conflict.

When asked to also clarify the tension between the Obidients and the OK Movement, Tanko dismissed it, stressing that there is no crisis or internal conflict with the camp of their principal.

“There is really no tension between us. We are just trying to work together. That’s all.

“We are just trying to make sure that we work together as a team,” he stated.

Shortly after Tanko’s defence, Obi’s media aide, Idris Zekeri, released a statement dismissing the reports as false.

“The Peter Obi Media Office acknowledges recent, coordinated efforts by political adversaries and disruptive individuals to create division, misrepresent our leader’s objectives, and foster artificial rifts within our movement dedicated to improving Nigeria.

“They dubiously try to ascribe their imagined words to our principal, aiming to create division in his fold. We feel it is imperative to directly and unequivocally address these manoeuvres.

“Let us be clear: our endeavour is, and always has been, driven by a commitment to national progress, not personal ambition, ethnic appeals, or petty partisan squabbles.”

The statement accused unnamed political opponents of manufacturing distractions while Nigerians continued to grapple with economic hardship, insecurity and unemployment.

“We implore our devoted supporters, including the Obidients and Kwankwasiyya movements, and all Nigerians of good conscience, to disregard rumours, fabricated stories, and deliberate provocations, including the purported sack of the Obidient Movement National Coordinator, Dr Yunusa Tanko,” it stated.

Adding another dimension to the unfolding crisis, former spokesman of the New Nigeria People’s Party, Ladipo Johnson, admitted that disagreements existed within the OK Movement but maintained that they would not derail preparations for the 2027 elections.

Johnson, who featured as a guest on Arise Television, on Friday described the dispute as a distraction rather than an existential threat.

“Yes, we have- may I call it a distraction at the moment? It is not such, in my own humble opinion, that would lead you to take unilateral actions that could scuttle or bring bad blood within the support base of the person you purportedly want to become the president of the country,” he said.

He urged members to focus on strengthening the movement instead of allowing personal disagreements to undermine its broader political objectives.

Johnson also disclosed that Obi had been briefed on the development and was unhappy with the situation.

“I saw the presidential candidate last night (Thursday) along with the DG. He’s not happy about the whole situation,” he said.

The internal wrangling comes at a critical period for the opposition as political groups continue consultations aimed at forging a united front capable of challenging the ruling All Progressives Congress in the 2027 presidential election.

Although leaders of the Obidient Movement and the OK Movement have continued to insist that their disagreements are internal and resolvable, the public exchange of accusations and rival claims to leadership has raised fresh questions about cohesion within one of the emerging support platforms expected to play a significant role in opposition mobilisation ahead of the polls.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo on Friday described his decision to pick former Vice President Atiku Abubakar as his running mate in the 1999 presidential election as the biggest mistake of his presidency.

Obasanjo made the remark in Lagos during a fireside conversation with veteran entertainer and activist Charles Oputa, popularly known as Charly Boy, at the public presentation of Charly Boy’s foundation and memoir, 999: A Memoir in Tribute to Late Justice Chukwudifu Oputa.

The former President, who served alongside Atiku between 1999 and 2007, said although every leader makes mistakes in office, his choice of vice president remained the one decision he regretted most, saying he would never have chosen him had he known then what he later discovered about his former deputy.

A video of the event, later published by iWitnessLive TV on YouTube, captured Obasanjo reflecting on his years in office after Charly Boy asked him to identify the greatest mistake he made as president.

“What I have found in my own life is that mistakes that could have been fatal, God had taken care of them for me,” he stated.

Pressed to identify one specific mistake, the former President responded, “The man I picked as my running mate, my number two. If I had known him as I came to know him later, I would not have picked him.”

When Charly Boy sought clarification on whether he was referring to Atiku, Obasanjo replied, “My vice president. I don’t know what name you want to give him, but my vice president, I mean that.”

He maintained that with the benefit of hindsight, he would have made a different choice.

“Of course, what I know about him later… I would not have picked him. Thank God that God did not allow his actions and reactions to overwhelm me, divert my focus from Nigeria or harm Nigeria,” he said.

The former President, however, insisted he harboured no personal resentment against Atiku despite their turbulent political relationship.

“There’s no bitterness because he did what he believed he should do, and God did what God had to do, which enabled me to achieve what I was able to achieve,” he added.

Friday’s remarks represent one of the strongest personal assessments the former President has made publicly about his decision to select Atiku as vice president, reviving a political rivalry that has shaped the country’s democratic landscape for more than two decades.

Obasanjo and Atiku emerged as the first democratically elected President and Vice President after the end of military rule in 1999, winning the election on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party.

For much of their first term, the administration was widely regarded as a formidable political partnership, with Atiku playing a prominent role in the National Economic Council, the National Council on Privatisation and several economic reform initiatives.

However, relations between the two leaders deteriorated sharply during Obasanjo’s second term in office.

The crisis intensified after Atiku opposed attempts by allies of the former President to amend the Constitution to allow a third presidential term for Obasanjo.

The failure of the controversial constitutional amendment in 2006 widened the gulf between both men and triggered one of the most bitter power struggles in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic.

The feud escalated into legal battles over the powers of the vice president after Obasanjo declared Atiku’s office vacant following his defection from the PDP to the then Action Congress ahead of the 2007 general election.

The Supreme Court eventually ruled that the President lacked constitutional powers to remove an elected vice president, allowing Atiku to complete his tenure.

Since leaving office, both men have repeatedly traded accusations over corruption, abuse of office and political betrayal.

In his memoir, My Watch, published in 2014, Obasanjo accused Atiku of corruption, disloyalty and placing personal ambition above national interest.

Atiku dismissed the allegations, accusing his former principal of attempting to rewrite history and portraying himself as the victim of political persecution during the closing years of the Obasanjo administration.

Although the two politicians briefly reconciled ahead of the 2019 presidential election when Obasanjo endorsed Atiku’s bid against President Muhammadu Buhari, the rapprochement proved short-lived, with both men subsequently returning to separate political paths.

Obasanjo has since remained one of Atiku’s most vocal critics, repeatedly urging Nigerians to prioritise competence, integrity and national interest in the choice of future leaders.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN