“To make a deliberate falsification for personal gain is the last, worst depth to which either scholar or artist can descend in work or life” – Dorothy Sayers
The most troubling type of political figure to avoid, is one whose values are shaped by selfish desires, particularly when it comes at the cost of his constituents. Minister Dave Umahi’s history – from his tenure as Chairman of the formerly dominant Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to his role as the Chairman of PDP Chairmen, and his position as Deputy Governor to Chief Martin Elechi, who still grapples with the implications of Umahi’s proximity – illustrates how he ascended to the governorship contrary to Elechi’s wishes. The complexities surrounding his eight-year administration which focused on infrastructural development, have unfortunately left the people of Ebonyi State in a worse financial position.
Senator Umahi’s anger and frustration in 2018, when Atiku Abubakar opted for Peter Obi as his running mate rather than him, his almost absurd idolization of Muhammadu Buhari in hopes of securing his endorsement for President in 2023 resulting in building a moribund airport named after Buhari in Ebonyi State, and his later admiration for Bola Ahmed Tinubu – culminating in his assertion that Tinubu is the solution the Biafran Igbo have been searching for, all aggregate to paint a concerning picture of him.
A politician with such a background should be approached with caution, especially considering the lengths to which he may go to sustain his personal interests at the expense of who or whatever is on his way. Umahi’s invocation of “Biafra” rhetoric in his push to present Tinubu favourably to the Igbo community is one of the most contentious and divisive public relations manoeuvres in recent Nigerian political discourse. By consistently stating that “Bola Tinubu is the Biafra Ndigbo have been looking for,” Umahi has sought to appropriate a deeply poignant, historical struggle and reframe it as a campaign slogan for the upcoming 2027 elections. Although this rhetorical tactic appears intended to demonstrate unwavering loyalty to The Presidency, it is widely perceived in the South-East as a serious misappropriation of historical significance, a distortion of current realities, and a manipulative political strategy.
Umahi’s rhetorical approach reveals a crucial flaw: It misleadingly combines a symptom with its root cause. While the South-East certainly requires infrastructure, the “Biafran” sentiment transcends mere demands for better roadways; it encompasses calls for systemic fairness, equal citizenship rights, constitutional reform, and an end to perceived marginalisation. Thus, attempting to bridge the deep political and emotional divide with mere infrastructural projects may fulfil bureaucratic metrics but does not genuinely address the region’s political realities.
At the core of Umahi’s argument is a materialistic reinterpretation of the “Biafra” sentiment. His narrative employs a simplistic formula, he obscures the truth by framing the Biafran agitation solely as a reaction to economic and infrastructural neglect by previous governments. He cites ongoing federal initiatives within his Ministry in the South East as evidence that the region is now being assimilated. However, he conveniently overlooks the significant exclusion of the South-East in critical areas, such as the latest national rail developments. Thus, despite the appointment of an Igbo individual as Minister of Works and the allocation of funds to projects that fall short compared to other regions – to the point where even Lagos State surpasses the South-East – Umahi expects us to readily accept that Tinubu has delivered the equity and inclusion long sought by the region.
Umahi’s attempts to invoke the Biafran struggle in his opportunistic endeavours are an utter distortion, which many true Biafrans find offensive and belittling. For the broader South-East electorate, civil society, and opposition groups, Umahi’s claims are seen not as astute political manoeuvring but as an offensive and self-serving distortion likely to backfire. The term “Biafra” holds profound emotional significance, connected to the anguish of a civil war, considerable losses, and a multi-generational desire for justice, equity, and self-determination within Nigeria.
Simplifying this intricate historical and emotional narrative to mere roads and construction contracts – as if they represent the extent of his commitment – appears insensitive and simplistic. As a Minister from the region, Umahi is aware that the priority concern in contemporary South-East politics is security, characterised by militarisation, economic stagnation from enforced stay-at-home orders, and the unjust detainment of IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu. Claiming that “Biafra is here” due to infrastructure projects fundamentally ignores the pressing security and political crises affecting daily life in the region.
For the Ndigbo, the true benchmark for federal inclusion lies in achieving a political and judicial resolution to the region’s unrest, not merely financial provisions for infrastructure. There have been evident attempts to gain favour with the Ndigbo ahead of the 2027 elections and to alleviate the profound political estrangement felt in the South-East. The government frequently emphasises notable appointments of Igbo technocrats to significant federal roles (in sectors like security, economy, or digital governance). While these appointments may follow standard constitutional practices aimed at national balance, they are often publicised as extraordinary “olive branches” to the South-East, despite other regions – such as Ogun State – having the same number of Ministers as the entirety of the South-East States. Until recently, the South-East had only one fully-fledged cabinet Minister, who is Umahi himself. It was only as the Foreign Minister Yusuf Tuggar departed to contest gubernatorial elections in Bauchi State that our sister, Ambassador Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu was elevated to full Minister.
Therefore such a simplistic strategy faces skepticism because it attempts to utilise these appointments as genuine efforts to win the support of the mainstream South-East electorate. If Umahi and his associates are earnest in their attempts to present Tinubu favourably to the Ndigbo, they should begin their outreach in Lagos. What has been the experience of the Ndigbo in Lagos since 2023? Has Umahi not made himself a willing tool to punish Ndigbo and their businesses in Lagos, where is the Biafran-ness in what Ndigbo is going through in the President’s State? The significant ethnic and political tensions that arose in Lagos during the 2023 election cycle are still fresh in our memory, and no simplistic public relations efforts can easily erase that reality. In light of the seemingly glaring failures in appealing to the electorate in 2027 due to the apparent dearth of evidence, the APC seems to be pivoting from persuasion to coercion.
This shift raises questions, especially if they lack convincing arguments to present to the populace. Umahi and his fellow South-Eastern politicians are shifting their discourse from celebratory to explicitly coercive. Recent comments made during project inspections – threatening that Ndigbo must deliver “100 per cent votes” to the APC in the upcoming election or risk losing federal funding for projects – have stripped away any pretence of “inclusive governance.” This transforms infrastructure from a taxpayer’s constitutional right into a political bribe, weaponising the region’s developmental needs against its democratic right to make political choices.
In his efforts to showcase loyalty to Tinubu, Umahi may have inadvertently provoked a backlash he will need to navigate. Umahi’s desperate ambition to gain favour in Aso Rock as a loyalist and effective political enforcer capable of delivering the South-East vote in 2027 might further alienate him from local constituents, casting him as a politician who prioritises personal relevance over regional dignity. The Ndigbo remain steadfast in their desires; they will not be swayed by reckless remarks stemming from self-interest. The true quality of the pudding becomes apparent once it is tasted.
By January 16, 2027, following the vote count, Tinubu will understand the level of loyalty he has received from Umahi and his co-travellers as the public in the Biafran Ndigbo region will clearly demonstrate that Tinubu is not and cannot fulfil the aspirations of the Biafran Ndigbo. The remarks made by the Minister can be compared to a statement by George Orwell in his essay, Politics and the English Language, where he noted, ‘Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.’ Rhetoric alone is ineffective unless it is supported by genuine actions and institutional integrity, which were notably absent in Umahi and Tinubu’s discussions on Biafra.
Instead, what occurred was a clear misuse and distortion of language which elders had cautioned that eloquence divorced from truth can be a perilous weapon. And the great philosopher, Aristotle had long warned that ‘He who uses rhetorical power unjustly can do the greatest injury to society.’ In his novel 1984, Orwell expressed a similar concern that ‘The most effective way to destroy a people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history,’ which is precisely what Umahi attempted to do by trivialising Biafra and its deep significance, turning it into a mockery of ineffective governance. It is a political sin that warrants apology if not today, then tomorrow. God have mercy.