Their Fulani Presidency did not help them — Moghalu

Former presidential candidate, Dr Kingsley Moghalu, has said one of the issues pushing Nigeria to the brink of collapse as a united nation, is the belief that the Buhari administration is more about the interests of the Fulani ethnicity and the North than it is a government for all Nigerians.

He, however, noted that despite Buhari’s government being regarded as a Fulani government, the North is now one of the worst places in the country, to live.

The former CBN Deputy Governor, stated this while stressing the need to stop using the term “Igbo Presidency” in the South-East’s push to produce Nigeria’s president in 2023.

Prominent groups and individuals including the Ohanaeze Ndigbo and Chief Mbazulike Amaechi among others have been clamouring for the leading political parties to zone their presidential tickets to the South-East.

According to advocates of the idea, a president from the geopolitical zone will help to assuage the feelings of marginalisation that South-East indigenes have.

However, Moghalu said that such clamour should not be termed “Igbo presidency” but “Nigerian President from the South-East”.

The phrase “Igbo presidency” is problematic. We should speak of a Nigerian President from the Southeast. Not sure what good the “Fulani presidency” has done the country, including the north. Emphasizing the ethnic origin without the national context is the wrong emphasis.

— Kingsley Moghalu (@MoghaluKingsley) December 21, 2020

Loading...

Moghalu said it was “the wrong emphasis” to hammer on “Igbo presidency”.

“The phrase “Igbo presidency” is problematic. We should speak of a Nigerian President from the Southeast.

“Not sure what good the “Fulani presidency” has done the country, including the north.

“Emphasizing the ethnic origin without the national context is the wrong emphasis,” Moghalu said.

Asked if he did not want to be identified as Igbo, he said, “I have not said I am not Igbo. I am proudly so, culturally speaking.

“I am talking about the political implications of language in the context of national unity.”