By Dr. Jibrin Abubakar
The article credited to Ahmed Attahiru and published in the AMAC Tribune Newspaper of 27th December, 2025, purports to offer a critique of the SDP AMAC Chairmanship Candidate, Dr. Obinna Simon. Unfortunately, what the reader encounters is not a reasoned political analysis, but a poorly disguised exercise in intellectual dishonesty, deliberate misrepresentation, and the distortion of clear realities.
It is often said that “when facts are inconvenient, fiction is invited to sit at the table.” Ahmed Attahiru’s narrative fits squarely within this description.
The claim that Dr. Obinna Simon is prosecuting his campaign through religious or tribal divisiveness is not only false; it is a fabrication born out of either willful ignorance or calculated malice. At no point has the SDP AMAC Chairmanship Candidate deployed faith, ethnicity, or sectional identity as instruments of political mobilization. On the contrary, his campaign philosophy has consistently emphasized competence, inclusivity, administrative efficiency, and people-centered governance across all religious and ethnic lines within AMAC.
As the philosopher John Stuart Mill aptly warned, “Unseasonable kindness to the truth is the worst kind of falsehood.” Ahmed Attahiru’s article exemplifies this warning by pretending to speak truth while actively mutilating it.
To accuse a candidate whose political language has been rooted in policy articulation and civic unity of religious or tribal opportunism is to invert logic itself. Such inversion does not pass for analysis; it is propaganda. It is not criticism; it is contrivance.
Indeed, the author reveals himself not as a political commentator but as what may best be described as a first-class pretender, one who adorns shallow prejudice with the borrowed garments of intellectual critique. As Friedrich Nietzsche observed, “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.” Attahiru’s convictions, if they can be so called, appear driven more by bias than by evidence.
Politics, when practiced responsibly, demands honesty of observation and fairness of judgment. The deliberate distortion of Dr. Obinna’s campaign ethos suggests an inability to engage with the real substance of his political appeal. It is easier to invent a narrative of division than to confront a campaign built on competence and cross-community acceptance.
Furthermore, the attempt to reduce the SDP candidate’s rising popularity to religious or tribal sentiment is an insult to the intelligence of AMAC voters. It assumes that the electorate is incapable of independent reasoning, an assumption that history has repeatedly disproved. As Aristotle reminds us, “The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold.” This deviation, left unchallenged, risks poisoning public discourse.
This rejoinder, therefore, is not merely a defense of a candidate; it is a defense of political honesty. Democracy suffers when writers choose distortion over discernment and mischief over meaning. Public commentary should enlighten, not mislead; critique, not concoct.
In conclusion, Ahmed Attahiru’s article stands as a cautionary example of how not to engage political discourse. It fails the tests of objectivity, logic, and factual integrity. Dr. Obinna’s campaign remains firmly anchored on unity, service, and competence, principles that transcend religion and tribe, and which continue to resonate with the people of AMAC.
As Plato wisely stated, “Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance.” Unfortunately, Ahmed Attahiru’s contribution leans dangerously toward the latter.