Abati Versus Oshiomhole: When the Pen (Mouth) Provokes The Fist

By Valentine Obienyem

When Adams Oshiomhole challenged Reuben Abati to settle their dispute “on the street,” it was more than just a lapse in decorum; it was a return to primitive instinct.

The challenge, stripped of its political context, echoed an age-old pattern: the desire to settle disputes through confrontation and dominance rather than dialogue or principle.

Far from being novel, it depicts the tragic persistence of barbarism beneath the surface of civilisation.

When one hears the term “street challenge,” one immediately thinks of the ancient pankration, a brutal contest often decided by the death of one of the opponents. In the past, feuds were frequently resolved by one party killing the other. Ah, settling disputes by killing one another is an ancient solution that predates civilisation, and it has survived civilisation in people as primitive as Adam.

Oshiomhole’s verbal aggression may not involve swords, but it reflects the same absurd impulse to trade reason for combat. What we saw was not strength, but the revealing of how easily a public figure can abandon civil discourse for primal theatre, appealing not to intellect but to instincts best left behind.

In many ways, Oshiomhole exemplifies human contradiction: it is unsteady from centre to circumference. At one point, he praised Mr. Peter Obi was Nigeria’s best governor, claiming that other governors sought to emulate him. In another breath, he claimed Obi had accomplished nothing as governor.

This pendulum of pronouncements reveals a deeper inconsistency, namely a restless mind that rarely holds a conviction long enough to mature into principle.

The man has demonstrated to us that true civilisation is measured not by offices or titles, but by consistency of conduct and clarity of thought. That Oshiomhole so easily abandons both demonstrates how fragile the veneer of maturity can be, even in those who have previously worn the garments of statesmanship.