Okay, let’s humanize and summarize Obafemi George’s interview into six paragraphs, aiming for around 2000 words. This will involve expanding on his points with more illustrative language and explanations, while staying true to the core of his arguments.
Have you ever heard that old saying, “Don’t blame your tools, blame the carpenter”? Well, imagine a seasoned political observer, someone who’s watched the Nigerian political scene unfold for years, standing up and saying exactly that about the country’s opposition parties. That’s essentially the message Obafemi George, a sharp political scientist, brought to the public during a recent interview on ARISE NEWS. He was directly tackling a pretty persistent whisper – actually, more of a shout these days – that the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) is secretly pulling strings, stirring up trouble within opposition ranks to weaken them. But George, with a calm, almost professorial demeanor, dismissed these claims as utterly baseless. To him, it’s not some grand conspiracy orchestrated by the APC; it’s a symptom of deeper, internal issues plaguing the opposition itself. He didn’t just shrug it off; he pointed a finger, not at the APC, but at what he sees as a worrying trend in our modern political discourse: the rampant spread of misinformation and the ease with which unverified allegations take root and flourish, especially in the fertile ground of social media. It’s like a game of telephone, where a whisper quickly becomes a roar, losing all semblance of truth along the way. George isn’t just a political pundit; he’s a scientist in the true sense, demanding evidence, facts, and verifiable data, not just gut feelings or angry accusations. His central argument is that the current struggles of opposition parties aren’t due to some shadowy APC interference, but rather a profound failure on their part to live up to the expectations of their supporters and, crucially, to uphold their own internal rules and structures. This isn’t just about finger-pointing; it’s about a fundamental call for accountability, reminding everyone that in politics, as in science, assertions need proof.
George further elaborated on his point by directly challenging those making the accusations. “Show me the proof,” he practically dared, making it clear that mere speculation, no matter how loudly repeated, doesn’t equate to truth. He specifically brought up the African Democratic Congress (ADC), a party that has been embroiled in its own internal squabbles. He emphasized that despite all the talk, no one – absolutely no one – has managed to present a single, concrete piece of evidence to substantiate the claim that the APC was orchestrating the ADC’s troubles. This isn’t just about a lack of evidence; it’s about the stark contrast between current allegations and historical instances where political sabotage was indeed proven. George, with the weight of history in his voice, drew our attention back to times when similar accusations were made, but with a crucial difference: they were backed by undeniable, undeniable facts. He recalled the 2003 general elections, a contentious period where opposition governors in the South-West mysteriously found themselves ousted from power. Back then, he reminded us, there were clear, documented instances of foul play. He even brought up the 2007 election, where then-President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, with remarkable candor, openly admitted that the very process that brought him into office was deeply flawed. And who could forget the dramatic events surrounding the 2014 Ekiti election, where leaked video and audio recordings provided damning evidence of electoral compromise? These weren’t mere whispers or social media storms; these were evidential bombshells. George’s point was simple yet profound: if you want to accuse, you must be prepared to present the kind of irrefutable proof that stood up to scrutiny in those past instances. Without it, the current claims against the APC are nothing more than empty noise, serving only to distract from the real issues that plague the opposition.
Taking his argument a step further, George peeled back the layers of the ADC crisis, not to exonerate the APC, but to highlight what he sees as the primary culprit: the party’s own constitutional breaches. He didn’t just speculate; he pointed to the explicit words within the ADC’s foundational document. The party’s constitution, he stated unambiguously, clearly stipulates a four-year term for party officials, renewable only once. This is a fundamental rule, designed to ensure regularity, promote internal democracy, and prevent the entrenchment of individuals. Yet, George revealed a stark violation of this principle within the ADC, citing the remarkable and legally questionable tenure of Ralph Nwosu, who served as chairman from 2005 right up to 2025. That’s a staggering 20 years, a period far exceeding the constitutional limit even with a renewal. George didn’t mince words: “By their own constitution,” he declared, “anything beyond 2013 was illegal.” This was not an external force undermining the party; this was a self-inflicted wound, a willful disregard for their own founding principles. His analysis wasn’t just limited to the ADC; it was a broader indictment of how many opposition parties operate. He firmly maintained that the primary reason for the instability, fragmentation, and ultimate weakening of these parties lies squarely within their own internal decision-making processes and deeply ingrained structural weaknesses. “All other parties crumbled because of their internal processes,” he asserted emphatically. “You cannot blame the APC for that.” This is a powerful, if uncomfortable, truth for many: the enemy often isn’t outside the gates, but lurking within.
Beyond the specific woes of individual parties, George also tackled a more existential fear that ripples through the Nigerian political landscape: the growing narrative that the country is steadily drifting towards a one-party state. It’s a frightening thought for any democracy, hinting at reduced choices, stifled debate, and potentially, authoritarian tendencies. But George, ever the pragmatist, pushed back against this notion with conviction. He rejected it outright, insisting that the current political realities are not, in fact, a testament to the irresistible dominance of the ruling party, but rather a stark reflection of the profound and consistent failures of the opposition. To him, it’s not about the APC being overwhelmingly powerful; it’s about the opposition being consistently weak, disorganized, and internally fractured. He reminded us that these “issues didn’t start today,” contextualizing the current state of affairs by tracing internal disputes within various parties back to periods long before the pivotal 2023 general elections. This historical perspective is crucial because it debunks the idea that the current situation is merely a recent phenomenon engineered by the APC. Instead, it suggests a chronic ailment within the opposition that predates the current ruling party’s ascendancy. He also shed light on recent electoral reforms, specifically defending the crucial move away from indirect primaries. For years, indirect primaries were seen as susceptible to undue influence, where the wealthiest aspirants could essentially “buy” delegates, distorting the democratic process. George hailed this reform as a significant step forward, arguing that it has demonstrably improved the credibility and integrity of Nigeria’s political process by making it harder for money alone to dictate outcomes.
Furthermore, George provided a robust defense of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the body constitutionally mandated to organize and oversee Nigerian elections. In a political climate where INEC is often the target of criticism, George offered a refreshing perspective, emphasizing that the electoral body operates squarely within its constitutional mandate. He argued that INEC’s actions, which often draw fire from various political camps, are fundamentally aimed at protecting the integrity and sanctity of the electoral process itself. To illustrate his point, he drew a vivid comparison to the tumultuous 2019 Zamfara elections, a situation where court rulings dramatically overturned election results long after the fact, creating chaos and mistrust. George’s explanation was clear: INEC, through its current actions and reforms, is actively striving to prevent a recurrence of such destabilizing scenarios. Its role, as he sees it, is not to favor one party over another, but to safeguard the entire system from legal loopholes, procedural irregularities, and post-election judicial interventions that can undermine public confidence. While acknowledging that criticisms regarding “perception” and perceived “political influence” are valid public concerns that need to be addressed, George vehemently insisted that all political arguments, if they are to hold any weight, must remain firmly grounded in verifiable, empirical evidence. He made a powerful analogy, stating that “When you are talking politics, you cannot build a mountain on perception. It has to be evidence-based.” For him, politics, particularly when studied academically, is not a whimsical art but a rigorous science. It demands data, facts, and demonstrable proof, much like any scientific discipline. It’s an important distinction, reminding everyone involved that while emotions and perceptions play a role, the foundation of credible political analysis and debate must always be objective truth.
In his concluding remarks, George brought his entire argument full circle, delivering a powerful and unequivocal message to Nigeria’s opposition parties. He urged them, with the gravitas of someone genuinely concerned about the health of the nation’s democracy, to look inward. His final takeaway was unambiguous: true progress and a stronger political landscape will only emerge when opposition parties embrace a fundamental shift in perspective. Instead of constantly looking outwards, pointing fingers at external forces like the ruling APC, they must take profound and unflinching responsibility for their own internal shortcomings, their organizational weaknesses, and the intrinsic challenges that have plagued them for years. He stressed that attributing their struggles to external interference is not only inaccurate, but it’s also a counterproductive deflection that prevents them from engaging in the necessary self-reflection and structural reforms needed to become truly formidable and credible alternatives. The onus, he reiterated, is entirely on them. If they aspire to provide robust opposition, to genuinely challenge the status quo, and to effectively govern if given the chance, then they must first put their own houses in order. This means adhering to their own constitutions, fostering internal democracy, uniting fractured factions, and building coherent, appealing platforms based on genuine public service, not just opportunistic maneuvering. George’s message was a stark and necessary call to action: stop the blame game, confront the internal demons, and only then can a truly vibrant and competitive multi-party system truly flourish in Nigeria.