The people of Delta State will determine who leads them, argues ALFRED AKACHUKWU
Politics often produces strange spectacles, but few are as intriguing as the recent intervention by former Deputy Senate President, Ovie Omo-Agege, on national television. Appearing on Arise News on Wednesday morning, Omo-Agege ostensibly sought to respond to remarks made a day earlier by Delta State Governor, Sheriff Oborevwori, who had dismissed him as posing no significant threat in the 2027 political calculations in Delta State.
Yet, rather than directly address the governor’s challenge, Omo-Agege chose a different route. He introduced President Bola Ahmed Tinubu into the conversation by alleging that there had been a presidential directive prescribing a 60:40 sharing formula between the old APC structure and new entrants into the party in Delta State.
According to Omo-Agege, this arrangement was respected elsewhere but allegedly ignored in Delta State, where the camp of Governor Oborevwori supposedly moved to dominate party structures and positions.
The former Deputy Senate President’s intervention raises more questions than it answers. More importantly, it reveals a troubling tendency to substitute political sophistry for political reality.
The first question is simple: why is President Tinubu being dragged into what is essentially an internal struggle for influence within the APC in Delta State? Political parties routinely experience tensions following defections and realignments. Such disagreements are usually resolved through negotiations among stakeholders, consultations with party leadership, and the democratic processes established by the party itself. To elevate a local dispute over political offices into an issue allegedly involving presidential directives appears designed to create the impression that certain promises were made and subsequently broken.
The implication is unmistakable. If indeed there was a presidential preference or directive, then someone must be responsible for ensuring compliance. By introducing the President into the discussion, Omo-Agege appears to be subtly suggesting that those who stood by the President in difficult times have somehow been abandoned.
Whether intended or not, that narrative amounts to a form of political blackmail. It places the President in an uncomfortable position, portraying him as either unwilling or unable to protect loyal supporters. Such framing does not advance party unity. Instead, it risks creating divisions between long-standing APC members and more recent entrants into the party.
The reality is that politics is not governed by entitlement. No politician, regardless of past sacrifices, is guaranteed perpetual ownership of party structures or electoral tickets. Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Omo-Agege’s interview was his emphasis on his political strength and continued popularity. He pointed to his victory in 84 out of 85 wards during the Delta Central Senatorial primaries as evidence that his organic support base remains intact.
If that is indeed the case, then one wonders why he failed to clinch the APC Delta Central Senatorial District primary election. And even more instructively, why the preponderance of reports from the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) senatorial district primary election, to which he had defected to after failing to get the APC nomination was also reportedly lost by him. Why pivot the discussion in a way to revolve around a 60:40 sharing formula in the first place?
Political capital is ultimately tested at the ballot box and through party primaries. A politician who commands overwhelming grassroots support should have little reason to rely on negotiated allocations or formula-driven arrangements to secure relevance.
The contradiction is difficult to ignore. On one hand, Omo-Agege presents himself as a politician whose popularity remains undiminished. On the other hand, he complains about the distribution of offices and influence within the party structure that failed to pander to his whims and caprices. Both arguments cannot comfortably coexist.
If the grassroots remain firmly behind him, then political contests should provide sufficient opportunity to demonstrate that support. If, however, there is anxiety about losing influence, then perhaps the challenge lies not in broken agreements but in changing political realities.
Indeed, if the truth must be told, the political landscape in Delta State has undergone significant transformation in recent months. Governor Oborevwori’s political moves have altered long-standing alignments. The governor has consolidated considerable influence across the state, attracting politicians from different tendencies and creating new equations within the APC since he joined. Even when he was a member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Governor Oboorevwori always made it clear that he is a governor for all Deltans. And take it or not, that has really earned him the love and support of hitherto political opponents. Whether one agrees with these developments or not, they represent political facts on the ground. Successful politicians adapt to changing realities. Unsuccessful ones spend valuable time lamenting the past.
There is another dimension to Omo-Agege’s intervention that deserves scrutiny. The former Deputy Senate President appears eager to present himself as the principal architect of President Tinubu’s electoral success in Delta State. His reference to individuals who fought to deliver over 100,000 votes for the President suggests a belief that political loyalty should translate into continuing control over party structures.
But democratic politics does not function as a system of permanent rewards and punishments. Political support during one election cycle does not create a lifetime franchise over a political party. Parties evolve. Coalitions expand. New actors emerge. Alliances shift. The ability to navigate these changes is often what separates enduring politicians from those whose influence gradually declines.
The APC in Delta State cannot be frozen in time simply to preserve the comfort of any particular individual. Moreover, the notion that political offices should be distributed based primarily on historical loyalty rather than contemporary realities is problematic. Parties exist to win elections and govern effectively. They must constantly reposition themselves to remain competitive. If new entrants strengthen the party’s prospects, their presence inevitably changes the balance of power. That is not betrayal; it is politics.
What makes Omo-Agege’s intervention particularly curious is its timing. The 2027 elections remain some distance away. Yet the speech sounds like an attempt to frame the contests in advance. By raising questions about fairness, agreements, and personal considerations as the basis for his exit and pitching his tent against his former party today, a foundation is being laid for tomorrow’s narratives. Should future political ambitions encounter resistance, it becomes easier to argue that unseen forces, broken promises, or unfair arrangements were responsible. Such arguments may provide convenient explanations, but they rarely substitute for electoral success.
Ultimately, the people of Delta State will determine who leads them and who represents them. Neither television appearances nor claims about unobserved sharing formulas or agreements, if they ever existed, can replace that fundamental democratic reality.
Governor Oborevwori’s assertion that Omo-Agege poses no threat in 2027 is, of course, a political statement. Whether it proves accurate will depend on future events. Elections are unpredictable, and political fortunes can rise or fall rapidly. However, the appropriate response to such a challenge is political organization, grassroots mobilization, and engagement with voters—not the invocation of alleged presidential directives.
If Omo-Agege believes he retains the overwhelming support he claims, then the path forward is straightforward: build his structures, strengthen his alliances, mobilize his supporters, and test his popularity when the time comes. That is the language voters understand. The language of formulas, entitlements, and alleged agreements belongs to a different political era.
As Delta politics moves toward 2027, what citizens are likely to demand are concrete ideas, measurable achievements, and credible visions for the future. They will be less interested in internal disputes over who controls what that led to the exit of who from which party. In the end, politics rewards those who persuade the electorate, not those who complain most effectively about political arrangements.
That is why Omo-Agege’s latest intervention appears less like a demonstration of strength and more like an exercise in sophistry which is an attempt to shift attention from present political realities to narratives of grievance and entitlement. The road to 2027 will not be determined by who invokes the President’s name most frequently. It will be determined by who earns the confidence of the people. Everything else is merely rhetoric.
Akachukwu, a public affairs commentator and Democracy Advocate, writes from Asaba, Delta State