Photo: Kenneth Okonkwo
By Daniel Kanu
There is a question Kenneth Okonkwo owes Nigerians—not necessarily because he has changed political camps, but because of the ferocity with which he now attacks those he once defended and the manner in which he now defends the man he once attacked.
This question becomes even more important because Okonkwo, the former spokesperson of the Peter Obi presidential campaign, has emerged as one of the most vocal defenders of former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), ahead of the 2027 presidential election.
In his new political incarnation, Okonkwo has accused President Bola Tinubu and Peter Obi of betraying Atiku, arguing that both men had, at different times, endorsed Atiku’s presidential aspiration.
His argument appears simple: if Tinubu and Obi could support Atiku at one point, why are they now opposed to him? Fair enough.
But if that question is legitimate, then Nigerians are equally entitled to ask Okonkwo the same question: If Peter Obi’s decision to move in a different political direction from Atiku amounts to betrayal, what should Nigerians call Okonkwo’s own journey—from being one of Obi’s most passionate defenders and spokespersons to becoming one of Atiku’s most aggressive advocates?
It is a question of political consistency.
And it is a question that should be answered by anyone who seeks public office, occupies a political spokesperson’s position or claims to be driven primarily by principles rather than political convenience.
There was a time when Okonkwo was not merely a supporter of Peter Obi.
He was one of the public faces of the Obi political project.
In 2023, he served as one of the official spokespersons of the Labour Party Presidential Campaign Council for Obi and Yusuf Datti Baba-Ahmed.
The campaign structure publicly listed him among its spokespersons.
He did not speak about Obi as though he was defending an ordinary politician.
He spoke with extraordinary conviction.
In January 2023, for instance, Okonkwo told the public that Obi’s political structure was rooted in the people, contrasting it with what he described as the “paid structure” of the APC and PDP.
He had argued that Obi’s supporters were motivated by patriotism rather than monetary inducement.
In another interview in October 2022, Okonkwo went as far as declaring that Peter Obi had effectively already won the 2023 presidential election, arguing that Obi possessed the character and capacity to serve Nigeria.
That was Kenneth Okonkwo. The passionate defender. The campaign spokesman.
The man who appeared convinced that Obi represented a political alternative to the established political order.
Therefore, when Nigerians now hear Okonkwo describe Obi in extremely negative terms, they are naturally entitled to ask what happened between the man who once made those glowing arguments for Obi and the man who now appears determined to discredit and destroy him.
Okonkwo has provided an explanation.
He says he fell out with Obi because he became convinced that the former Anambra state governor lacked the decisiveness and leadership qualities required to become president.
In 2024, he publicly announced that he was no longer speaking for Obi.
That explanation is his right.
Political relationships can collapse. Political assessments can change. People can support someone and later become disappointed in that person.
There is nothing inherently immoral about changing one’s political position.
But that principle must apply equally to everyone.
If Okonkwo is entitled to change his mind about Obi, then why is Obi not entitled to change his political direction?
If Okonkwo’s change of political allegiance is called conviction, why must another person’s change be called betrayal?
That is the contradiction Nigerians should examine.
Perhaps the most striking part of Okonkwo’s current political journey is his relationship with Atiku Abubakar.
Today, he is Atiku’s spokesperson and one of the strongest public defenders of the former vice-president’s 2027 presidential aspiration.
But the public record shows that Okonkwo was once one of Atiku’s fierce critics.
This is not speculation. In October 2022, while serving as a Labour Party spokesman and defending Peter Obi’s presidential candidacy, Okonkwo attacked Atiku in extraordinarily strong language.
He said Atiku had failed and accused him of attempting to damage Nigeria’s democracy. He had argued that Atiku was corrupt and “very unfit” to be president and described him as a threat to democracy.
That was not a casual comment. It was a political indictment. It was a rejection of Atiku’s suitability for the presidency.
It was a declaration made publicly, forcefully and at a time when Okonkwo was seeking votes for another candidate.
So the question Nigerians should now ask is simple: What changed?
Did Atiku suddenly become more competent?
Did the alleged shortcomings that Okonkwo identified in Atiku disappear?
Did the events that once made Atiku “unfit” to be president cease to matter?
Did Atiku suddenly become the man capable of rescuing Nigeria? Or did the political circumstances surrounding Kenneth Okonkwo change?
These are legitimate questions.
Indeed, Okonkwo himself appears to recognise that his previous criticisms of Atiku are difficult to ignore.
In explaining his current relationship with Atiku, he has said that Atiku recognised his value despite his earlier criticisms and saw his potential to contribute to Nigeria.
That is an interesting explanation.
But it does not completely answer the question.
Recognising someone’s value as an individual is different from resolving one’s fundamental political objections to that person’s presidential ambition.
If Okonkwo once believed Atiku was unfit to lead Nigeria, Nigerians deserve to know precisely what changed his mind.
And if his answer is that he reassessed Atiku and became convinced that he was wrong, Nigerians should be mature enough to accept that.
But then he must extend the same courtesy to Peter Obi, who has demonstrated integrity over the years.
You cannot demand consistency from others while exempting yourself.
This is where Okonkwo’s current argument begins to look intellectually deficient.
He accuses Tinubu and Obi of betrayal because, according to him, they had previously supported Atiku.
But political endorsement is not a lifetime marriage contract.
People endorse candidates at different points in their political careers because of circumstances existing at those particular times.
Peter Obi’s relationship with Atiku is a classic example.
Obi was Atiku’s running mate in the 2019 presidential election. Atiku selected Obi as his running mate after consultations within the PDP and among political stakeholders.
The political circumstances of 2019 were different from those of 2023.
And 2027 is another political environment entirely. Therefore, Obi’s decision to seek the presidency under a different platform cannot automatically be described as betrayal simply because he previously ran alongside Atiku.
The same principle applies to Tinubu.
Political alliances change. Coalitions form and collapse.
Politicians who once worked together later compete against one another.
That is politics.
If Okonkwo is permitted to move from Obi to Atiku because he says his assessment changed, why should Obi be permanently bound to Atiku because of a political partnership that existed years earlier?
This is the central weakness in Okonkwo’s betrayal and endorsement argument.
He is demanding from others the kind of political consistency he himself has not demonstrated.
There is another dimension that Nigerians should not ignore.
Okonkwo has not merely changed political parties. He has changed principals.
He moved from being one of the public faces of the Obi project to becoming a public face of the Atiku project.
That is a significant political transition.
And it is perfectly legitimate to make such a transition.
But once you make that transition, you cannot reasonably expect Nigerians not to examine your previous statements.
Your old interviews become part of your political biography.
Your old speeches become part of the public record.
Your previous accusations become relevant.
Your former political convictions become legitimate subjects of scrutiny.
This is especially so when you now deploy some of the same arguments against your former principal that you once deployed against his political opponents.
In 2023, Okonkwo presented Obi as an embodiment of a people-driven political movement. Today, he is a major advocate for Atiku.
In 2022, he described Atiku as unfit for the presidency. Today, he describes Atiku as the man with the experience and capacity to rescue Nigeria.
In 2024, he criticised Obi’s leadership and said he was no longer speaking for him. Today, he is one of Obi’s most persistent critics.
None of these changes is automatically illegal. None is automatically immoral.
But together they raise a serious question about political philosophy.
What is the enduring principle?
Is politics about principles or principals?
This is where the Nigerian political class has consistently disappointed the electorate.
Politicians and political spokespersons often speak about principles when their interests align with a particular candidate.
Once the political relationship changes, the same principles mysteriously change.
A politician becomes a visionary when you support him.
The same politician becomes incompetent when you leave him.
A candidate becomes a democrat when he gives you political relevance.
The same candidate becomes undemocratic when he no longer accommodates you.
A former opponent becomes a statesman once you join his camp.
A former ally becomes a traitor once you leave.
This is precisely why Nigerians are increasingly suspicious of political spokespersons.
They want people who can distinguish between defending a political position and defending a political principal.
A genuine political principle should survive the departure of a political benefactor.
If you believe corruption is wrong, it should be wrong when committed by your candidate and by his opponent.
If you believe incompetence is unacceptable, it should be unacceptable irrespective of who pays your political salary.
If you believe democracy matters, you should defend democratic values even when your own camp is threatened.
If you believe a politician is unfit to become president, there should be a compelling reason before you reverse that position.
That is the standard Okonkwo must now meet.
There is a broader issue here, although it would be unfair to state as an established fact that Okonkwo changes political allegiance simply because someone is paying his bills.
That is a serious allegation and should not be presented as proven without evidence.
But politically, Nigerians have a phrase for the phenomenon: stomach infrastructure.
It describes a politics in which personal survival, patronage, appointments, contracts, financial benefits or access to political power become more important than ideology, policy or principle.
And this is the danger that Okonkwo’s dramatic political journey creates in the minds of observers.
When a man moves from one political camp to another, attacks his former principal and becomes a fierce defender of his new principal, people naturally ask whether the movement is driven by conviction or opportunity.
The burden is therefore on the politician to demonstrate that the change is principled. Okonkwo can do that.
He can tell Nigerians: This is what I believed about Atiku in 2022.
This is what I got wrong.
These are the facts that changed my assessment.
This is why I now believe Atiku is capable of leading Nigeria.
This is why my political principles remain consistent despite my change of candidate.
That would be a serious political explanation.
But simply telling Nigerians that Atiku “recognised my value” does not completely answer the larger question of political consistency but, perhaps, stomach infrastructure.
The issue is not whether Atiku recognised Okonkwo’s value.
The issue is whether Okonkwo’s assessment of Atiku changed for compelling reasons. And what about Obi?
There is also a moral dimension to the manner in which Okonkwo now attacks Obi.
Nobody is suggesting that former political allies must remain friends forever.
If Okonkwo genuinely believes Obi is not capable of leading Nigeria, he has every democratic right to say so.
But Nigerians should remember that this is the same Peter Obi whom Okonkwo once presented as an extraordinary alternative to the established political system.
This is the same Obi whose campaign Okonkwo defended.
This is the same Obi whose political structure he described as being rooted in the people.
This is the same Obi whose presidential aspiration he promoted before millions of Nigerians.
Now, Obi is portrayed by Okonkwo as someone who has betrayed him and, in other recent comments, as a politician allegedly working against the prospects of an Igbo presidency.
Again, Okonkwo has a right to his opinion.
But the public also has a right to ask:
Was Obi always the person Okonkwo now describes, or did Okonkwo’s perception change? If it changed, why?
If Obi’s character was fundamentally different in 2023 from what it is today, what specific event changed that assessment?
And if Obi was already unsuitable for the presidency, why did Okonkwo spend so much political energy persuading Nigerians otherwise?
These are not unreasonable questions.
They are questions of accountability.
A political spokesperson is not merely a megaphone.
The office carries responsibility.
A spokesperson speaks to the public on behalf of a candidate. He interprets the candidate’s policies, defends the candidate’s record and attacks the arguments of opponents.
For that reason, the credibility of the spokesperson matters almost as much as the credibility of the message.
If a spokesperson’s political history is littered with contradictory declarations, opponents will naturally use those contradictions to challenge his credibility.
That is why Okonkwo’s old statements about Atiku matter today.
It is also why his old statements about Obi matter today.
In fact, his previous positions provide an opportunity for him to demonstrate something valuable: that political maturity means the ability to admit that one was wrong.
There is nothing shameful about saying:
“I was wrong about Atiku.”
There is nothing shameful about saying:
“I supported Obi because I genuinely believed in him at the time, but subsequent developments changed my assessment.”
That would actually strengthen Okonkwo.
What weakens his position is when he demands that others explain every change in their political alignment while treating his own transition as self-evidently justified.
Nigeria needs politics beyond personalities
Ultimately, the argument should not be about Kenneth Okonkwo, Peter Obi or Atiku Abubakar alone.
Nigeria’s deeper problem is the politics of personalities.
Political parties are often treated as vehicles for individual ambitions rather than institutions built around enduring ideology.
Politicians move from party to party.
Supporters move from candidate to candidate.
Spokespersons change principals.
Former enemies become allies.
Former allies become enemies.
And through all of this, ordinary Nigerians are told that every new political arrangement represents a new national salvation.
Then, after the election, the same problems remain.
This is why Nigerians should demand something better in 2027.
Candidates should be judged on their records.
Their policies should be scrutinised.
Their integrity should be tested.
Their economic programmes should be examined.
Their positions on insecurity, education, healthcare, unemployment, corruption, federalism, energy, subsidy question and institutional reform should be debated.
And those speaking for them should also be subjected to scrutiny.
No politician should be beyond questioning. Not Tinubu. Not Atiku.
Not Obi.
And certainly not Kenneth Okonkwo.
The question that refuses to go away is that: Okonkwo has every right to believe that Atiku is now the best candidate for Nigeria.
He has every right to criticise Obi.
He has every right to challenge Tinubu.
He has every right to defend his new principal.
But he must also accept that Nigerians have the right to hold him to his own words.
So, Kenneth Okonkwo, must genuinely answer the question: What changed?
What changed between the man who called Atiku unfit to be president and the man now campaigning vigorously for Atiku?
What changed between the man who described Obi as the candidate with the capacity to transform Nigeria and the man who now says Obi is unfit to lead?
What changed between the spokesman who once defended Obi against his opponents and the spokesman now attacking Obi with the intensity of a political adversary?
And perhaps the most important question of all:
What enduring political principle explains all these transitions?
If the answer is conviction, Nigerians should hear the evidence.
If the answer is political evolution, Nigerians should understand the events that caused the evolution.
If the answer is that Okonkwo simply discovered that he was wrong about both men at different times, then he should have the courage to say so.
There is dignity in admitting that one was wrong.
There is no dignity in pretending that one’s political history never happened.
Nigerian politics does not need more politicians who merely change sides.
It needs politicians who can explain why they changed sides without changing the principles by which they judge everybody else.
That is the real test for Kenneth Okonkwo.
He cannot demand consistency from Tinubu and Obi while asking Nigerians to ignore his own political evolution.
He cannot accuse others of betrayal while refusing to explain his own dramatic departure from the political project he once championed.
And he cannot convince Nigerians that his politics is driven entirely by principle unless he is prepared to subject his own record to the same scrutiny he routinely applies to his opponents.
The ultimate issue, therefore, is not whether Kenneth Okonkwo is entitled to support Atiku. Of course he is.
The issue is whether Nigerians should accept his present political argument without examining his past. They should not.
If yesterday’s alliances can legitimately end, then Okonkwo should stop presenting the end of another political alliance as evidence of betrayal.
That is the consistency Nigerians should demand.
Because democracy is not a covenant that requires politicians to remain permanently attached to everyone with whom they once shared a political platform.
It is a contest of ideas, interests, programmes and competing visions for the future.
And if Okonkwo genuinely believes Atiku represents the best option for Nigeria in 2027, he should sell Nigerians that vision.
He should tell Nigerians what Atiku will do differently.
He should defend Atiku’s record and programme.
But he should leave the selective history lesson behind.
This is because once political history becomes the weapon, it must be used consistently.
And when it is used consistently, Okonkwo will discover that his own political history—and indeed Atiku’s—raises almost as many questions as those he is asking about Peter Obi and Bola Tinubu
In a democracy, yesterday’s statements do not disappear simply because today’s political appointment has changed.
The videos remain.
The interviews remain.
The speeches remain.
The arguments remain.
And so does the question:
Kenneth Okonkwo, what exactly changed?
Until he provides a convincing answer, Nigerians are entitled to wonder whether what has changed is not merely the candidate he supports, but the political principles by which he measures loyalty, competence, betrayal and integrity.
And that is a conversation worth having before 2027.
