Mr. President, Wike’s Actions Toward the Main Opposition Party Are Hurting You More Than Them — Nigeria Is Still a Democracy -By John Egbeazien Oshodi

Before the Sealing: The Internal Earthquake

Mr. President, Wike’s actions toward the main opposition party are not simply damaging the targeted party — they are hurting your own image more than theirs. And in a democracy, especially one still evolving like Nigeria’s, this perception carries significant psychological and political weight.

Before the national outrage and the public spectacle of sealing the PDP National Secretariat, signs of deep internal rupture had already emerged. The crisis within the opposition was boiling over, and what followed was not sudden — it was the eruption of tensions that had long been brewing. The widening gulf within the PDP, sharpened by the intensifying power struggle between key figures, created a perfect storm that was waiting for ignition.

The withdrawal from reconciliation efforts by high-profile actors just days before the sealing signaled a dramatic shift. What should have been internal party mediation took on the optics of open warfare. And when emotional fractures evolve into administrative aggression, the fallout is no longer contained within the party — it reverberates across the entire democratic space.

Before the national outrage and the sealing of the PDP National Secretariat, the crisis within Nigeria’s main opposition party was already at a breaking point. The tension between FCT Minister Nyesom Wike and Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State, alongside other factions, had escalated into open warfare. Wike publicly withdrew from all reconciliation efforts just a day before the sealing, accusing Makinde and Governor Peter Mbah of betrayal and systematically undermining party unity.

In his own words, Wike wrote:

“I have now firmly decided to pull out of all agreements hitherto reached. I have decided to fight on until justice is attained.”

This was not a neutral withdrawal. It was a declaration of battle from within — and one that carried not only political implications but psychological undertones of estrangement, abandonment, and an overwhelming sense of mistrust within a political family. It set the tone for a widening rupture that risked destabilizing not only the PDP, but the broader democratic atmosphere in the country.

Sealing as a Weapon: The Political Spectacle Unfolds

On May 26, 2025, the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA), under Wike’s authority, sealed the PDP National Secretariat over a 28-year unpaid ground rent. Officially, the sealing was part of an enforcement action affecting 4,794 properties. But in symbolic terms, the opposition party appeared to be targeted openly, sealed publicly, and shamed deliberately.

The sight of government workers plastering “sealed” notices on Wadata Plaza had more than administrative meaning — it signified a calculated form of public political disciplining. While other institutions such as the CBN, INEC, and NNPC were reportedly defaulters, they did not experience the same highly visible, performative sanction. This disparity reinforced the perception that what was unfolding was less about policy enforcement and more about political punishment.

To many Nigerians and observers across the globe, this act did not feel like an impartial government action — it resembled an orchestrated signal, one aimed at showing what might happen to those who oppose the dominant order. And that signal, unfortunately, was sent with the weight of federal power behind it.

Reckless Signals and Democratic Fallout

The aftermath of the PDP headquarters sealing sent more than just political tremors — it ignited outrage that reached the heart of democratic discourse. During an emergency caucus meeting, the acting chairman of the PDP described the move as “the highest irresponsibility from this government.” He further stated, “We will not take this lightly. They could come and arrest all of us; we are prepared. This is a clear attempt to undermine democracy.”

When terms like “arrest” are publicly invoked in a democratic state simply over political disagreements or perceived administrative excess, it sends a disturbing signal not only to Nigerians but also to the international community. These statements are not just reactions — they are warnings. They reflect a growing anxiety over what appears to be the use of state power to suppress political plurality.

Such rhetoric — emotionally charged and politically consequential — does not help the President’s standing. Instead, it contributes to a narrative where his administration appears reactive at best, and complicit at worst. At a time when the country is grappling with economic hardship, insecurity, and institutional fragility, this type of internal chaos from within the ruling structure only deepens public distrust.

Here Is the Painful Contradiction

Here is a man serving as a federal minister in an APC government.

Here is a man who has publicly declared that he will not support any 2027 presidential candidate except Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the APC.Yet, this same man insists he is still a member of the PDP.

Such contradictions create long-term institutional confusion. They damage the clarity of political allegiance and erode the meaning of party loyalty. In a democratic setting, where parties are expected to present alternatives, hold government accountable, and reflect policy direction, such dual positioning can feel not just strange — but destabilizing.

It sends mixed signals to the public, especially in a country where democracy is still growing its roots. This kind of ambiguity fosters cynicism and opens the door for manipulation of systems that should remain independent and transparent.

President Tinubu Intervenes: Too Late, Too Tactical?

President Bola Tinubu eventually ordered a halt to the sealing, granting a 14-day grace period for all defaulters. But by that point, the damage was not merely physical or administrative — it was psychological and reputational.

In politics, especially within young democracies, perception is currency. And in this case, the perception — rightly or wrongly — is that this entire sequence of actions unfolded not only under the President’s watch, but potentially with his silent approval. The optics are troubling: a ruling party member, with ministerial authority, taking visible steps against the opposition while the presidency remains mute until public outrage forces a retreat.

And one must pause to reflect: Mr. President, imagine the amount of stress and pressure you were forced to absorb in those hours — amid Nigeria’s many urgent crises — simply to reverse the sealings that should never have taken place the way they did. While confronting national security issues, economic strain, and institutional fatigue, you were pulled into a crisis not of your making, yet one that demanded presidential intervention. Such distractions do not project the image of a stable, composed administration.

Such optics do not help the President’s image before Nigerians and the world. In fact, they risk backfiring, casting the administration as either complicit in suppressing opposition or incapable of controlling its own appointees. Neither impression serves democratic stability or legacy-building.

Nationwide Reactions: The Democratic Fabric Trembles

Across the country, voices within the political sphere and civil society have echoed concern, frustration, and disappointment. From informal caucuses to official party structures, sentiments have ranged from warnings of betrayal to calls for institutional self-cleansing. The emotional tone is telling: frustration has turned into fatigue, and fatigue into suspicion.

This widespread reaction reveals a deeper issue — a sense that something fundamental is cracking beneath the surface of party loyalty and national governance. The remarks, though varied in tone and region, collectively paint a picture of rising unease about internal sabotage, blurred allegiances, and a growing perception that power is being used not to lead, but to isolate and dominate.

Such reactions, though not always coordinated, illustrate the psychological fracture within Nigeria’s democratic opposition structure — a structure repeatedly tested not just by electoral processes, but by unexpected internal blows.

The trauma expressed here is not merely political. It is institutional and deeply personal. For a democracy to function, parties must have coherence, and opposition must have space. When these are threatened by insiders, it becomes not just a partisan crisis, but a democratic one.

Final Reflection: You Cannot Lead a Democracy While Undermining It

Democracies thrive on the appearance — and the reality — of fairness. When the instruments of the state are perceived as being used against opposition voices, especially through tactics that appear excessive, it leaves democratic ideals bruised.

This brings us to a difficult but necessary reflection. With Wike’s continued open anti-party behavior, and his recurring pattern of public defiance toward his own political base — no matter his founding influence, no matter his financial input, no matter the debt of past loyalty — there comes a point where continued tolerance is no longer a sign of maturity but of institutional fatigue.

This is not a call for political vengeance. This is a psychological observation that unchecked contradictions weaken institutional memory and democratic continuity. In settings like Nigeria’s, where democratic culture is still being refined, ambiguous allegiances and deliberate disruptions do not advance the system — they corrode it.

In moments like this, responsible leadership — especially within a party committed to renewal and reform — must confront uncomfortable truths. A time may come, and perhaps it has already arrived, when holding on to a figure whose actions appear persistently at odds with the collective purpose is no longer sustainable. He may no longer be the guardian of growth the party needs. At such a point, a respectful and principled separation might be the most constructive path forward.

It may be time, for the sake of democratic balance and organizational integrity, for the PDP to calmly but firmly review what loyalty and membership mean in the context of governance and opposition.

Because if this pattern continues, Nigeria risks not only becoming a one-party state in function, but also one where the instruments of state are reconditioned to silence, not serve.

And the final seal, Mr. President, may not be on Wadata Plaza.

It may be on public confidence in democracy itself.

Psychologist John Egbeazien Oshodi

This writer does not know any of the individuals involved; the focus is solely on upholding democracy, truth, and justice.

Professor John Egbeazien Oshodi is an American psychologist, educator, and author specializing in forensic, legal, and clinical psychology, cross-cultural psychology, police and prison sciences, and community justice. Born in Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria, he is the son of a 37-year veteran of the Nigeria Police Force—an experience that shaped his enduring commitment to justice, security, and psychological reform.

A pioneer in the field, he introduced state-of-the-art forensic psychology to Nigeria in 2011 through the National Universities Commission and Nasarawa State University, where he served as Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology. His contributions extend beyond academia through the Oshodi Foundation and the Center for Psychological and Forensic Services, advancing mental health, behavioral reform, and institutional transformation.

Professor Oshodi has held faculty positions at Florida Memorial University, Florida International University, Broward College, where he also served as Assistant Professor and Interim Associate Dean, Nova Southeastern University, and Lynn University. He is currently a contributing faculty member at Walden University and a virtual professor with Weldios University and ISCOM University.

In the United States, he serves as a government consultant in forensic-clinical psychology, offering expertise in mental health, behavioral analysis, and institutional evaluation. He is also the founder of Psychoafricalysis, a theoretical framework that integrates African sociocultural dynamics into modern psychology.

A proud Black Republican, Professor Oshodi advocates for individual empowerment, ethical leadership, and institutional integrity. His work focuses on promoting functional governance and sustainable development across Africa.