Peter Obi, the 2023 presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP), became the target of a renewed political threat on Friday when Edo State Governor, Monday Okpebholo, warned him not to enter the state without prior security clearance.
Okpebholo, speaking while receiving a new member into the All Progressives Congress (APC), alleged that Obi’s recent visit to Edo coincided with the killing of three people and accused him of fuelling unrest.
EDITOR’S PICKS
EKO HOT BLOG reports that he further claimed that Obi had dropped ₦15 million during the visit and declared that his security would no longer be guaranteed unless he informed the state government beforehand. “Whatever happens to him… he will take it,” the governor said, adding, “I am serious about it.”
This latest warning follows an earlier episode in April when Peter Obi was blocked from visiting Benue State. At the time, Benue Governor Hyacinth Alia cited protocol and security concerns as reasons for advising Obi to stay away, even after Obi stated that he had reached out to the governor’s aides and shared his itinerary. Though the trip was intended to support displaced persons and health institutions, Obi’s visit was abruptly cancelled after the state government issued a press statement advising against it.
These incidents mark a troubling trend of state governors using executive powers to limit the movement and activities of opposition politicians. While both governors justified their actions using security and protocol language, the overtly political tone and timing suggest these are not neutral administrative decisions but calculated efforts to restrict rival political figures. This represents a dangerous departure from democratic norms.
Threatening an opposition leader’s safety, particularly by an elected governor, sends an alarming signal that the rule of law may be subordinated to partisan interests.
Every Nigerian, regardless of political affiliation, has a constitutional right to freedom of movement and political association. Governors are duty-bound to guarantee those rights, not condition them on loyalty or prior notification.
When a sitting governor says a political opponent must “take whatever happens” for entering his state, it implies a withdrawal of state protection and flirts with incitement.
More broadly, these developments risk shrinking Nigeria’s democratic space. When visits by opposition figures are met with threats, obstruction, or hostile bureaucratic hurdles, it discourages civic engagement and fosters a climate of fear.
It also politicises humanitarian efforts, as seen in Benue, where even aid to internally displaced persons was blocked on procedural grounds that many viewed as thinly veiled political resistance.
The growing use of security rhetoric to justify political exclusion mirrors patterns observed in more authoritarian systems, where public safety becomes a pretext for suppressing opposition.
FURTHER READING
If left unchecked, this approach may erode public trust in democratic norms and normalise intolerance. In a country already grappling with insecurity and political polarisation, it is especially dangerous for those in power to stoke division and threaten dissenters rather than protect and engage them.
Philip Ibitoye is a Special Correspondent with EKO HOT BLOG. Click here to find daily analysis and critical insight on trending issues in Lagos and other parts of Nigeria.
Click here to watch the video of the week below:
