Obi and Atiku
By Tosin Ogunrinde
The silence of Peter Obi and Atiku Abubakar over former U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent remarks about an alleged “Christian genocide” in Nigeria could be attributed to several political, diplomatic, and strategic considerations. Both leaders, as prominent opposition figures and former presidential candidates, understand the sensitivity of international comments that could inflame Nigeria’s fragile religious balance. By remaining silent, they may be seeking to avoid stoking further division or being misinterpreted as endorsing or opposing Trump’s controversial statement in a country where religion remains a deeply polarizing issue.
Another possible reason is political calculation. Both Obi and Atiku are still active in Nigerian politics and may be preparing for future elections. Taking a public stance on Trump’s claim could alienate segments of the electorate. If they appear to support Trump’s position, they risk being accused of criticizing the Nigerian government in a way that paints the country in a negative light internationally. On the other hand, if they oppose him, they might anger Christian communities who already feel marginalized or targeted. Silence, therefore, becomes a strategic neutral ground.
Additionally, both leaders may recognize the geopolitical implications of Trump’s statement. The United States remains an influential global power, and any response from Nigerian politicians could attract international scrutiny. Speaking without full verification of the alleged “genocide” could undermine their credibility on foreign policy matters. It is likely that Obi and Atiku prefer to await official clarification from both the Nigerian and U.S. governments before making public comments that could affect diplomatic relations.
There is also a cultural element to consider. Nigerian politicians often practice caution when reacting to international commentary about domestic issues, especially those touching on religion or ethnicity. The nation’s history of religious conflict in the Middle Belt and Northern regions has made public discourse around such topics particularly delicate. Obi and Atiku’s restraint might thus reflect an awareness that even a well-intentioned statement could be twisted by political opponents or extremist groups for propaganda.
Moreover, both men may feel that Trump’s remarks were politically motivated rather than humanitarian. Trump has been known to make provocative statements to appeal to his conservative Christian base in the U.S., many of whom see themselves as defenders of global Christianity. Obi and Atiku could interpret his comments as part of that agenda, and by refusing to respond, they avoid being drawn into a controversy that may have more to do with American politics than Nigeria’s realities.
It is also possible that both opposition leaders prefer to focus on domestic political priorities rather than engage in international disputes. Nigeria is currently grappling with economic hardship, insecurity, and governance challenges. By not reacting to Trump’s claim, Obi and Atiku might be signaling that they do not want to divert public attention from pressing national issues or be accused of using religion as a political weapon.
Another factor could be their respect for institutional diplomacy. Issues concerning Nigeria’s image abroad are typically addressed by the federal government through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As opposition politicians, Obi and Atiku may feel it is not their place to speak on a matter that falls within the jurisdiction of the sitting administration. Commenting could be seen as overstepping boundaries or undermining national unity in the eyes of international observers.
Lastly, their silence may be a reflection of political maturity and caution. Both Obi and Atiku understand the power of words in shaping national sentiment. In a nation already divided along religious lines, making any statement that could validate or dismiss claims of persecution carries significant risk. Choosing silence may therefore be a calculated effort to prevent escalation, preserve their reputations, and maintain focus on their political ambitions without becoming entangled in a highly charged international controversy.
