In a significant shift within Nigeria’s dynamic civil society, the Diaspora Engagement group—a formally active wing of the renowned Obidient Movement—has publicly announced its departure from the movement’s current organisational structure. In their official statement, the group cited concerns over what they described as an “increasingly toxic culture” and “dysfunctional attitudes” permeating the network they once supported.
This development, which was announced in a widely circulated statement signed by co-director Dr David Ogula on Thursday, has sent ripples across the Nigerian activism landscape. According to the statement, the decision followed “months of deep observation and introspection,” with members expressing mounting frustrations regarding alleged mismanagement, eroding principles, and leadership struggles at the core of the movement.
“Our intention from day one was to help shape the movement along the lines of the ideals that inspired many Nigerians: character, accountability, inclusivity, and justice,” Dr Ogula explained. The group originally came onboard after being approached to help formalise and stabilise the movement, which has, in recent years, been synonymous with calls for political change and good governance, largely driven by Nigeria’s youth and diaspora communities.
According to Dr Ogula, the group was motivated by a shared vision for a reimagined Nigeria—one free from the entrenched divides that have long impeded national unity. “We aimed to ignite the passion of young Nigerians, building a diverse coalition that transcends political, ethnic, and religious lines,” he said. Many believed that through collective action, the Obidient Movement could serve as a beacon for a more equitable and transparent democracy in Nigeria and across West Africa.
However, as the months passed, members of Diaspora Engagement began to witness a worrying disconnect between the movement’s public messaging and its internal realities. “The rhetoric promised transformation, but the reality was plagued by ambiguity and arbitrary decision-making,” Dr Ogula lamented. According to the group, personal agendas, rather than collective purpose, became increasingly visible in leadership decisions, eroding trust and hampering the original mission.
He further alleged that crucial aspects of good governance—such as transparency in operations, adherence to agreed processes, and respect for differing voices—were routinely sidelined. “What we found was a structure dominated by performative symbols and behaviour that undermined the values of inclusion and fairness so many signed up for,” Ogula stated. He also accused certain individuals of breaching trust, mishandling confidential information, and enabling behaviours that contradicted the group’s founding ideals.
The Diaspora Engagement group didn’t mince words about what they describe as factionalism, sycophancy, and opportunism within the movement. “It turned into a gathering of praise-singers and hopeful supporters, rather than a disciplined platform for nation-building,” Dr Ogula observed.
With the diaspora comprising a substantial force in the movement—both in terms of advocacy and financial support—the group alleged that this community was being treated less as partners and more as a “cash cow.” “There was very little understanding, let alone respect, for the legal and ethical frameworks that underpin cross-border operations,” Ogula said, noting that this led to arrangements that were “opaque, dysfunctional, and ultimately stripped us of meaningful participation.”
In frank terms, Dr Ogula likened the group’s journey to “riding on a dirt road in a broken vehicle only to come to a dead end.” Despite the disappointment, he affirmed Diaspora Engagement’s continued dedication to the struggle for a better Nigeria: “We may be out of the current structure, but we are not out of the fight for justice, integrity, and true inclusivity.”
This episode sheds light on the broader issues that many Nigerian advocacy groups face—namely, the difficulty of sustaining unity, managing internal power dynamics, and delivering transparent outcomes amidst high public expectations. Civil society analyst Mrs. Tilda Akinyemi commented to this outlet, “Nigerian social movements have often struggled to balance diversity and cohesion. Diaspora engagement is especially challenging, given the different legal systems, fundraising expectations, and cultural contexts involved.”
Nigeria’s political history is filled with active citizen movements formed to demand reform, from pro-democracy coalitions in the 1990s to more recent youth-led activism, such as the #EndSARS demonstrations. In each case, the challenge of retaining internal accountability and trust amid mounting pressure has been evident. The Obidient Movement—associated with progressive calls for change and large online mobilisation, especially in the leadup to Nigeria’s 2023 general elections—has garnered substantial support locally and among West Africans in the diaspora. However, as with similar movements across Africa, maintaining momentum and unity beyond electoral cycles remains a difficult task.
The Obidient Movement has not officially responded to the allegations as of this writing. However, discussions on social media and among civil society watchers suggest a need for introspection and reform within Nigerian and West African youth advocacy movements. Commentators from Accra to Lagos note parallels with similar splits in Ghanaian political activist groups, underlining that the challenge of internal democracy and diaspora relations is pan-African in scope.
Legal experts warn that cross-border political collaborations, especially those involving fundraising or strategic communication, must adhere to not only the national laws of Nigeria and countries where diaspora chapters operate, but also international regulations regarding transparency and non-profit governance. According to Lagos-based lawyer Bolaji Humphrey, “Noncompliance can shut down vital streams of support and expose organisations to external scrutiny. It’s essential for diaspora groups to insist on clear legal frameworks—otherwise frustrations are inevitable.”
Despite the discord, members of Diaspora Engagement have pledged not to abandon the broader quest for good governance. Dr Ogula declared that the group would shift its focus to building alliances with individuals and organisations committed to ethical leadership and systemic reform. “We remain proud of our contribution and will continue to speak up for Nigeria’s future,” he reiterated, urging like-minded Nigerians and Africans worldwide to keep hope alive.
The situation raises important questions: Can grassroots reform movements in Nigeria and across Africa overcome internal divisions to create sustainable change? What lessons can be drawn from these experiences to better harness the energy and resources of the diaspora? As the Nigerian public and broader West African audience continue to watch for developments, the answers to these questions will shape the region’s activist landscape in the years to come.
Have you been part of a movement or group facing similar challenges? What do you think makes or breaks unity within organisations like the Obidient Movement? Share your thoughts in the comments below—and stay tuned for further updates as this story evolves.
What’s your experience with civil society or diaspora activism in Nigeria, Ghana, or other parts of Africa? Drop your insights and join the conversation—your perspective matters!
Have a story to share or sell? We want to help you get your voice heard. Email us at story@nowahalazone.com to submit your story or discuss story sales.
For general support, you can reach us at support@nowahalazone.com.
Follow us for more civic and political updates:
Facebook |
X (Twitter) |
Instagram
