Opinion

By Chukwudi George Ozalla

I don’t even know the name of Governor Alex Otti’s Commissioner for Information or any of his media aides, and I hardly hear them because the governor’s performance appears to be doing most of the talking. Projects are going on in different parts of Abia State, and the administration appears focused on governance and delivery. There is therefore little need for constant explanation when people can see projects on the ground. The work speaks for itself.

That is what governance should be about. A governor occupied with delivering projects, improving infrastructure and addressing the needs of his people should have little time for needless political quarrels or repeated attacks on another politician.

If Governor Chukwuma Charles Soludo were as occupied with the developmental agenda of Anambra State as he appears to be with Peter Obi, the presidential candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), who left the governorship of Anambra State several years ago, would he have this much time and energy for the former governor?

The frequency of the exchanges is difficult to overlook. Soludo is entitled to disagree with Obi. He is entitled to support President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and defend the policies of the Federal Government. He is entitled to campaign for Tinubu’s second term and explain to Nigerians why he believes the President deserves their support. None of that is in dispute.

Soludo has also made his political position clear. I vividly recall that shortly after his inauguration for a second term in March 2026, he said APGA would not field a presidential candidate in 2027 and openly backed Tinubu’s bid for another term. APGA’s national chairman later confirmed the party’s position.

The issue, therefore, is not whether Soludo should support Tinubu. It is whether Obi needs to remain such a prominent subject whenever the governor or his officials speak about national politics.

There is a difference between making a political argument and sustaining a political quarrel. Soludo can defend Tinubu’s record, explain the policies he supports and challenge Obi’s positions when necessary without turning the disagreement into a running personal exchange. Political disagreement is part of democracy. There is no need to make every disagreement personal.

The matter becomes more important because Soludo is not just the Governor of Anambra State. He is the National Leader of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) and the party’s most prominent elected figure. His political statements are therefore heard not only as the views of an individual politician but also in the context of the party he leads.

APGA has candidates seeking election to the Senate, House of Representatives, State House of Assembly and other elective positions. Those candidates will have to face voters on the strength of their own records, programmes and relationships with their constituents. It would be unfortunate if they had to spend valuable campaign time and energy explaining political exchanges between their party leader and a former governor with whom they may have no quarrel.

The same consideration applies to the people who defend political leaders publicly, including commissioners, special advisers, media aides, political appointees, party officials and other foot soldiers. A governor has the security and institutional protection attached to his office, but many of the people who speak and act in his defence do not enjoy the same level of protection. They may be the ones left to face the consequences when political exchanges become heated and supporters on opposing sides begin trading insults, threats or confrontational messages that may lead to physical attacks. Political leaders should therefore be mindful of the temperature they create around political disagreements and the people who may be exposed when those disagreements spill over.

It is worthy to note that politics has a long memory. Alliances and views may change. Political opponents may become allies, while people who occupy powerful positions today will eventually leave those positions. Political relationships that appear permanent can change with circumstances.

This is where some of the classic political thinkers offer useful lessons. Niccolò Machiavelli wrote extensively about power, alliances and the changing nature of political relationships. Sun Tzu’s teachings placed strategy above needless confrontation and stressed the importance of knowing when and how to engage an opponent. Kautilya’s writings on statecraft similarly dealt with the management of rivals and shifting political interests. Robert Greene, writing in a very different period, has also explored the dangers that come with creating unnecessary enemies and failing to anticipate changes in the balance of power.

The common thread is not that politicians should avoid confrontation. It is that power requires judgement. Not every opponent has to be fought at every opportunity, and not every disagreement has to become a personal war.

Soludo has my state to govern and a political party to lead. He has enough political and administrative responsibilities without allowing a continuing exchange with Obi to occupy such a large part of the public conversation around his office.

More importantly, he should remember that whatever political battle he chooses to fight does not concern him alone. He is the National Leader of APGA, and the consequences of his political decisions and public exchanges can extend to the party and the candidates who will seek votes under its platform.

Not every political battle has to be fought to the last word. Sometimes the better political judgement is knowing when to make an argument, when to answer an opponent and when to move on. If Soludo is not careful, the man who believes he is fighting to defeat an opponent could end up becoming the undertaker of the very political party he leads.

That is why the warning remains relevant: never dig the pit of politics too deep. In trying to bury an opponent, a politician may end up digging a hole that becomes difficult to climb out of when political circumstances change.