Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga has fired back at former presidential candidate Peter Obi, accusing him of mistaking constant criticism for credible opposition.
The backlash comes after Obi publicly faulted President Bola Tinubu’s recent visit to Saint Lucia, describing it as unnecessary and ill-timed, especially amid Nigeria’s worsening insecurity. Obi had argued that a president should not be “holidaying abroad while the nation bleeds.”
But Onanuga swiftly dismissed the holiday claims, insisting Tinubu’s visit was not for leisure but a strategic diplomatic engagement aimed at deepening ties between Africa and the Caribbean.
“President Tinubu’s trip to Saint Lucia was not a vacation,” Onanuga wrote on X (formerly Twitter).
“It was a symbolic and strategic mission to rekindle ancestral bonds and open a new era of diplomatic, cultural, and economic cooperation.”
He explained that Saint Lucia is not only the headquarters of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) but also a key access point to 15 CARICOM member states with a combined GDP of over $130 billion — a significant bloc in global South-South relations.
“In an era of global uncertainty, deepening cooperation between Africa and the Caribbean is no longer optional. It is imperative,” he added.
Onanuga described Obi’s remarks as “misguided, mischievous, and uninformed,” accusing the Labour Party leader of consistently opposing the president without basis.
In a follow-up post, Onanuga didn’t mince words:
“Peter Obi’s opposition playbook is simple: weaponise everything. Criticise every move, every policy, every handshake — regardless of logic or merit. But constant criticism is not the same as effective opposition.”
Royal News observes that this latest exchange underscores the growing tensions between the ruling government and opposition figures, particularly as the battle for political influence intensifies ahead of 2027. While Obi has positioned himself as a voice of accountability, the presidency appears increasingly intent on framing his approach as reactionary and disruptive, rather than constructive.