The call to rebuild the Obidient Movement has become not just necessary, but inevitable. The 2023 elections demonstrated that the Obidient Movement was not a conventional political structure—it was an organic uprising powered by volunteerism, sacrifice, and belief in a new Nigeria. Across the nooks and crannies of the federation and in the diaspora, Nigerians invested time, resources, and personal credibility to mobilize for Peter Obi. That energy was spontaneous, decentralized, and deeply rooted in conviction. However, instead of consolidating and institutionalizing those gains after 2023, the movement appears to have weakened due to structural sidelining and poor integration of foundational actors.
Stakeholders within the movement have observed a troubling pattern: key organic mobilizers from 2023 have been pushed to the margins, while newer entrants occupy visible leadership spaces. Movements do not collapse from external attacks alone; they weaken when those who built them feel excluded. Charity and humanitarian gestures are commendable, but charity cannot replace political structure. When philanthropy begins to overshadow grassroots investment in political organization, disconnection sets in. A movement that neglects its own builders risks gradual erosion from within.
The disparity in engagement and support has further deepened frustrations. When visits to states generate significant donations to student bodies and institutions, yet the very stakeholders who mobilized crowds and coordinated logistics struggle to cover transportation costs, questions naturally arise about sustainability and prioritization. Political activism cannot be transactional, but neither can it survive on neglect. Those who consistently sacrifice must feel valued structurally, not symbolically.
Another central concern raised is the leadership architecture associated with Tanko Yunusa. Critics argue that the recruitment and structuring of leadership sidelined several foundational support platforms that were instrumental in birthing and sustaining the movement before formal political coordination emerged. Groups such as POSN, Like Minds for Peter Obi, Take Back Naija, CPO, Big Tent, COPDEM, 1MMC, and numerous other volunteer-driven coalitions reportedly lack clear representation within a transparent national-to-ward organogram. A movement that thrived on decentralized inclusion now faces criticism for centralized gatekeeping.
Beyond structure, there is the question of political deterrence and civic assertiveness. Some supporters argue that if the Obidient Movement were truly organized and formidable, political actors at state level would think twice before engaging in hostility or intimidation. The alleged attack incident involving Monday Okpebholo has been cited by critics as evidence of weakened deterrence capacity. The argument is that a disciplined, nationwide, well-coordinated civic structure would create reputational and political costs for any perceived aggression against opposition figures.
Similarly, critics point to what they describe as excessive security shutdowns around Aso Rock and airport corridors during movements of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. They argue that while presidential security is legitimate, prolonged road closures and sweeping disruptions raise questions about proportionality in a democratic society. A functional civic movement, in their view, would channel such concerns into lawful advocacy, institutional petitions, public accountability campaigns, and court actions—not merely social media commentary.
By this stage, many believe the Obidient Movement should have evolved into a documented, functional structure with coordinating offices across all 774 Local Government Areas. Regular bonding meetings, structured voter protection strategies, ward-level data management, rapid response communication systems, and election safeguarding mechanisms should already be underway ahead of 2027. Political momentum without institutional scaffolding rarely survives a second electoral cycle.
The strategic implication is clear: a movement that lacks shape cannot command influence. If cohesive and structurally grounded, it would function as a formidable civic force capable of influencing national political behavior and shaping governance accountability. Instead, critics argue that it risks being reduced to personality-followership—shadowing its principal rather than building an independent, self-sustaining political machine capable of contesting power effectively.
However, rebuilding remains possible. Political movements are living organisms—they can reform, recalibrate, and return stronger if lessons are honestly confronted. The path forward requires inclusion, transparent leadership selection, reintegration of sidelined organic actors, documented structures from national to ward levels, financial accountability frameworks, legal strategy teams, civic education units, and a clear roadmap focused squarely on 2027.
The opportunity still exists to transform the Obidient Movement from a moment into a machine, from a wave into an institution. But rebuilding demands urgency, humility, and deliberate structural engineering. The time to act is now.
Akor Christian Oche
(Due Process)
Convener, Due Process Integrity Vanguard
