Proximity Is Not Power: The Miscalculation Behind Obi Cubana’s Political Bet -By Jeff Okoroafor

In Nigeria, proximity to power is often mistaken for power itself. It is a seductive idea: that access—early, visible, and strategic—can translate into influence, and influence into outcomes.

It is this idea that appears to guide Obinna Iyiegbu, the businessman who has recently aligned himself with a pro-government movement backing Bola Ahmed Tinubu ahead of the 2027 election cycle. His stated aim is familiar in Nigerian political discourse: to bring Ndi-Igbo closer to the center of power.

The argument is not new. Nor is it entirely without logic.

In a federal system where political loyalty can shape access to federal appointments, infrastructure, and policy attention, alignment with the presidency has often been seen as pragmatic. Regions perceived as electorally decisive or politically cooperative tend to command greater urgency in national calculations.

For the South-East, a region that has long articulated grievances of marginalization—limited representation in top security roles, slower infrastructure development, and weaker presence in federal decision-making—the appeal of this strategy is clear. Engagement, rather than isolation, seems like the rational path.

But strategies are not judged by their intentions. They are judged by their outcomes.

The South-East is not politically disconnected from Abuja. Figures such as Hope Uzodimma and Orji Uzor Kalu have maintained close relationships with successive administrations. Business elites with significant federal access have operated within the same networks.

Yet the structural indicators of influence tell a more complicated story.

Recent federal appointments to key security positions—including the Chief of Army Staff, Chief of Defence Staff, and Inspector General of Police—have not reflected South-East representation. Federal budget patterns and infrastructure rollouts continue to show uneven regional distribution, with the South-East frequently cited in policy discussions as under-prioritized relative to its economic contribution.

If proximity were sufficient, these patterns would be difficult to explain.

The more plausible explanation is not the absence of access, but the absence of leverage.

Power in Nigeria is not merely about being present in the room. It is negotiated through electoral weight, party machinery, and the ability to influence outcomes at scale. Regions that can decisively affect national elections command attention not because of proximity, but because of consequence.

The South-East’s voting patterns—most notably its overwhelming support for opposition candidates such as Peter Obi in 2023—have reinforced its position outside the core coalition of the current administration. Whether fair or not, this reality shapes political incentives.

Against this backdrop, early alignment without corresponding electoral leverage risks offering visibility without bargaining power.

If the logic of alignment is debatable, its timing is even more so.

Nigeria is in the midst of a severe cost-of-living crisis. Since the removal of fuel subsidies and the liberalization of the foreign exchange regime, inflation has climbed sharply, with food prices rising at rates that have significantly eroded household incomes. The World Bank and Nigeria’s National Bureau of Statistics have both pointed to a marked increase in poverty levels in the past year.

For many Nigerians, these are not abstract reforms but daily realities.

In such a context, public alignment with the incumbent government is interpreted less as long-term strategy and more as present endorsement. It raises an unavoidable question: alignment for what, and for whom?

There is nothing inherently misguided about seeking relevance at the center. Indeed, any region that aspires to national influence must engage with federal power.

But engagement that is not anchored in collective strategy, clear objectives, and measurable outcomes risks becoming symbolic. It produces presence without progress.

For a region that has long argued for structural inclusion, symbolism is a thin return.

The question, then, is not whether proximity to power is desirable. It is whether, under current conditions, it is sufficient.

So far, the evidence suggests otherwise.

Until alignment produces tangible shifts—in representation, in infrastructure, in policy attention—the promise that proximity alone can deliver meaningful change will remain just that: a promise.

And in a political environment defined by hard outcomes rather than hopeful intentions, that distinction is everything.

Jeff Okoroafor

Jeff Okoroafor is a social accountability advocate and a political commentator focused on governance, accountability, and social justice in West Africa.