Obi, Divine Favour And The Futility Of Political Calumny -By Isaac Asabor

There is a point at which political criticism ceases to be criticism and becomes an attempt to destroy a man’s reputation by any means available. In Nigeria’s increasingly combative political environment, this distinction matters, particularly when the target is a public figure whose name has acquired considerable resonance among millions of citizens. Given the foregoing view, it is not an exaggeration to opine that Peter Obi has become one such figure.

To his admirers, Obi’s political prominence is not merely the product of political machinery, money or conventional patronage. They see it as a combination of personal conviction, political persistence, public identification with his message and, ultimately, divine favour. From that perspective comes the familiar biblical principle: “Who God has blessed, no man can curse.” Numbers 23:20, where the prophet Balaam states that he received a command to bless Israel and cannot reverse God’s blessing. The same principle can be extended to reputation: “He whom God has allowed to become famous cannot easily be brought down by malicious falsehoods.”

This, however, should not be misunderstood to mean that a public figure is beyond criticism. Nobody who participates in public life should enjoy such immunity. Politicians must be questioned, scrutinized and held accountable for their words, decisions, records and associations. But there is a fundamental difference between scrutiny and calumny. Criticism asks questions and examines evidence. Calumny seeks to damage reputation through false or defamatory assertions. One strengthens public discourse; the other poisons it.

In fact, the history of politics is littered with attempts to destroy reputations through rumour, insinuation and repetition. Sometimes the strategy succeeds temporarily. A falsehood repeated often enough can acquire the appearance of truth, particularly in an age when social media can transform an unverified claim into a nationwide controversy within minutes. Yet reputation built over time cannot always be erased by a temporary storm of accusations.

This is where the biblical account of Balaam offers a powerful metaphor. Balaam was hired to curse Israel, but the intended curse could not achieve its purpose. For people of faith, the lesson is straightforward: human intentions cannot overturn what God has ordained.

Applied to contemporary politics, the lesson is not that Peter Obi, or any other politician, is incapable of wrongdoing. Rather, it is that political opponents cannot determine a person’s ultimate public destiny simply by manufacturing narratives against him.

Obi’s prominence itself is evidence that something larger than conventional political calculations has occurred. A politician who can continue to command public attention years after an election, remain a central subject of national debate and inspire intense loyalty among supporters has acquired a political significance that cannot simply be wished away.

That significance may be interpreted differently by supporters and opponents. Admirers may describe it as divine favour. Critics may attribute it to political circumstances, voter dissatisfaction, personality, communication strategy or the dynamics of Nigerian politics. Those interpretations can coexist in public debate.

However, what should not coexist with legitimate debate is deliberate falsehood. The temptation to attack the messenger rather than confront the message is hardly peculiar to Nigeria. Whenever a political figure becomes influential, opponents often discover that attacking his character may appear easier than engaging his arguments. But the electorate is not necessarily as gullible as politicians sometimes assume. Citizens increasingly have access to multiple sources of information. They can compare statements, examine records and judge competing narratives for themselves. Propaganda may create noise, but noise is not necessarily persuasion.

Indeed, excessive attacks can sometimes produce the opposite effect intended by their promoters. When citizens perceive that a politician is being persistently attacked without corresponding evidence, they may begin to question the motives behind the attacks. This is why those seeking to discredit Obi, or any other political figure, should understand that allegations require evidence. Where evidence exists, it should be presented. Where questions exist, they should be asked. Where mistakes have been established, they should be acknowledged. But where the objective is simply character assassination, the exercise eventually becomes self-defeating.

There is also a deeper spiritual lesson here. The Bible contains numerous accounts of people whose destinies appeared threatened by human opposition. Joseph was sold into slavery. David was pursued by Saul. Daniel faced a hostile political establishment. Yet their stories are remembered not because their opponents were powerful, but because their opponents ultimately failed to determine their destinies.

For believers, that is the essence of divine favour: not the absence of opposition, but the inability of opposition to have the final word. That does not make Obi infallible. Neither does it make his supporters incapable of being wrong. Political loyalty must never replace evidence, just as political opposition must never replace fairness. The strongest defence of any public figure is therefore not blind devotion but truth.

If Obi is wrong, let the facts establish it. If he makes a mistake, let the mistake be exposed. If an allegation is true, let the evidence speak. But if an accusation is false, repeating it a thousand times cannot transform falsehood into truth.

Political fortunes rise and fall. Governments change. Parties split. Alliances collapse. Yesterday’s political giant can become tomorrow’s footnote.

But where millions of people have attached their hopes, expectations and aspirations to a public figure, attempts to erase that figure through malicious falsehoods are unlikely to settle the underlying political questions.

Those questions can only be settled by evidence, performance, accountability and, ultimately, the judgment of the people. For those who believe in divine providence, there is an additional conviction: what God has permitted to rise cannot be permanently destroyed by human malice. And perhaps that is the most important lesson. Criticism may test a reputation; truth will ultimately determine it. Calumny may create noise; it cannot permanently manufacture reality.