By Eshioromeh Sebastian
I have watched politicians issue statements for over two decades. Some are masterpieces of persuasion. Others are disasters waiting to happen. The response from the Peter Obi Media Office to Aviation Minister Festus Keyamo belongs firmly in the second category.
I have followed Peter Obi’s political journey with interest. He is a man of considerable achievement. He has earned the right to be taken seriously. That is precisely why his media team owes him better than this. A leader of his standing should not be let down by those who claim to speak for him. Yet one cannot ignore that Obi himself has often struggled with strategic communications, a weakness his handlers have only amplified in this case.
On July 4, 2026, Mr. Peter Obi, the presidential candidate of the Labour Party in the 2023 election, was at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, Abuja. He was there to catch a flight. He arrived, alighted from his vehicle, and went inside the terminal. His driver parked the vehicle in what was later described as a prohibited drop-off zone. Moments later, the vehicle was clamped by airport officials.
That much is not in dispute.
What followed is where the trouble began. Obi later appeared on a podcast hosted by Chude Jideonwo and made an allegation that his vehicle was clamped under questionable circumstances. He alleged that it was part of a pattern of harassment against him by the Federal Government. He went further, alleging that his business and life were under threat and that he “might not be alive” to contest the next election.
His supporters seized on the interview and amplified his claims.
The Minister of Aviation, Festus Keyamo, could not let that pass. Unlike most public officials who respond with press releases and political statements, Keyamo responded with evidence. He released CCTV footage from the airport showing the incident. According to the Minister, the footage showed Obi’s vehicle arriving at the domestic terminal at exactly 20:28. Obi and two others alighted. The driver returned briefly at 20:32 to pick something from the vehicle, then left again. At 20:58, the vehicle was clamped. That is thirty minutes, not five. Keyamo also alleged that Obi called the airport manager and secured the release of the vehicle without paying the prescribed N25,000 fine. He gave Obi one week to tender an unreserved public apology and pay the fine, or face further action.
That was the Minister’s account. It came with evidence. It was detailed, specific and was backed by timestamps that anyone could verify.
In less than twenty four hours, Peter Obi Media Office responded. The statement, signed by Idris Zekeri Jnr, is addressed directly to the Minister. It raises questions about double standards, selective enforcement, security breaches, and political motivation. It accuses Keyamo of acting as accuser, investigator, judge, and executioner. It ends with a flourish: “Mr Keyamo, are you the Law?”
It is a strong statement, yet deeply flawed. And I say this as someone who believes that when you engage a public official like Keyamo, you must do so with facts — not sentiments.
There is an old saying that a man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client. I am tempted to say that a politician whose media team puts out a statement without checking the facts has a fool for a defence. The statement from the Obi camp is a classic case of shooting first and asking questions later. And as the Americans like to say, you cannot unring a bell.
The most damaging claim in their response is the assertion that the vehicle was clamped “within approximately five minutes” of arrival. Everything else flows from this claim. If it falls, the rest of their case collapses with it.
But the CCTV footage tells a different story. At 20:28, the vehicle arrives. At 20:58, it is clamped. That is thirty minutes. I have watched the footage. The timestamps are clear. Anybody can verify this. So why would the Obi camp make a claim that is so easily disproven? The great American writer Mark Twain once said, “It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
The statement also argues that the incident Keyamo tweeted about is different from the one Obi referenced in his interview. This is a convenient deflection, but it does not hold up. Obi’s interview was vague. He gave no date, no location, no specifics. Keyamo responded to the specific July 4 incident. If Obi was referring to something else, he should have said so. As the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein observed, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” Obi spoke, but he did not speak clearly. And now his media team is trying to clean up the mess by not speaking clearly too.
The statement claims that “at most airports around the world, a ten-minute drop-off window is generally considered acceptable.” This is simply not true. At airports worldwide, drivers must remain behind the wheel in drop-off zones. Leaving a vehicle unattended is a security risk under ICAO protocols. The issue is not how long the vehicle was there. The issue is that it was abandoned. It is like a man who leaves his car running in a no-parking zone and argues that he was only gone for five minutes. The law does not ask how long you were gone. The law asks whether you violated the rule.
The statement emphasises that Obi “was not present” when the vehicle was clamped. This is meant to distance him from the incident. But the vehicle belonged to Obi. It was under his control. He spoke to the airport manager by phone and secured its release. Keyamo’s case is precisely that Obi used influence to avoid paying the fine. To argue that Obi was not physically present is to miss the point entirely. It is like a general who claims he was not at the scene of a battle, so he cannot be held responsible for what happened. The general gives the orders. Obi made the call.
The statement contrasts the Obi incident with two earlier cases, the Oshiomhole incident and the KWAM 1 incident, suggesting the Minister has been selectively silent. But in the KWAM 1 case, the Minister did act. KWAM 1 was placed on a no-fly list. CCTV footage was released. Sanctions were imposed. Using this as an example of “inaction” is factually incorrect. It weakens whatever moral authority the statement might have claimed.
The statement claims that publishing CCTV footage of Obi’s movements “compromised his personal security.” This is difficult to sustain. The footage shows only public areas of the airport. It does not reveal his residence, his route, or his security protocols. Obi himself had already publicly discussed the incident. The footage was released in response to a public allegation he made. You cannot complain about security breaches when you have already put the matter in the public domain.
The statement alleges political motivation, but it offers no evidence to support that claim. Inference is not proof. The great British philosopher Bertrand Russell once said, “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” The Obi camp is certain of political motivation, but certainty without evidence is not wisdom.
The statement ends with a flourish: “Mr Keyamo, are you the Law?” The answer is straightforward. Keyamo is not the law. He is the Minister of Aviation exercising his statutory oversight over FAAN. The demand for an apology and payment of the fine is within his powers. To suggest otherwise is to misunderstand the role of a Minister in a constitutional democracy. As the Roman philosopher Cicero observed, “We are slaves of the law so that we may be free.” The law applies to everyone. Even presidential candidates.
My Verdict
The Obi camp had an opportunity to set the record straight. Instead, they produced a statement that relies on claims that can be easily disproven, makes comparisons that do not hold up to scrutiny, raises serious allegations without evidence, and ends with a rhetorical flourish that sounds profound but is actually an admission of weakness.
If this statement was approved by Mr. Obi, then he must answer for its discrepancies. If it was not, then his media team has done what bad media teams often do — they have made a bad situation worse.
.
.
Discussion about this post