By Catherine Agbo
In the unfolding drama of Nigerian political discourse, few things excite the commentary circuit quite like a prominent figure stepping decisively into the political arena.
The recent media frenzy surrounding the activities of the High Chief Government Ekpemupolo-led PBAT Door-to-Door Movement is a classic study in selective outrage.
Ekpemupolo, popularly known as Tompolo, is the Grand Patron of the movement.
From editorial columns in national dailies to online commentary, critics have been relentless in dishing out opinions about the group’s activities targeted at mobilising support for President Bola Tinubu’s re-election campaign.
Yet, beneath the righteous indignation lies a fundamental misinterpretation of constitutional rights and democratic principles.
The narratives being spun across several opinion pieces, such as those asking why Tompolo should be actively involved in partisan politics or phoney groups labelling his endorsement as “deceptive,” are all built on shaky foundation.
Critics point to his role as a major security stakeholder in the Niger Delta and argue that a person of his background should remain politically passive or detached from party politics. Others question the deployment of operational vehicles and logistics to coordinators of the movement across states for the campaign, framing legitimate political mobilisation as an overreach.
However, this wave of criticism ignores a fundamental truth, that Nigeria is a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law.
Section 39 and 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) guarantee every citizen the right to freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly and association.
These rights are not reserved exclusively for career politicians, armchair intellectuals, or media commentators, they belong to every Nigerian citizen in equal measure.
Critics who have raised the alarm over campaign spending have also conveniently ignored the provisions of Nigeria’s statutory electoral framework.
The way I see it, High Chief Ekpemupolo has not gone against the Electoral Act 2026 in any way.
The Electoral Act 2026 sets clear financial caps on direct spending by individual candidates and limits on direct monetary donations to political parties or candidates’ accounts.
It also limits the amount a donor can make to a candidate or political party to N500 million.
The Electoral Act 2026 does not, however, specify, mandate, or place any financial spending ceiling for independent third-party support groups, non-governmental movements, or citizen-led mobilisation platforms.
Because the law contains no statutory cap on what an independent group can spend to mobilise voters, logistically equip its coordinators, or advocate for a candidate, Tompolo’s support group operates entirely within the legal limits of the Nigerian electoral law.
To invent non-existent legal infractions simply to tar a political support group is a disingenuous exercise in bad faith.
Tompolo has not been indicted by any court of competent jurisdiction, nor has he violated any law of the land by supporting a presidential candidate of his choice.
He has not been found wanting in any legal measure whatsoever for exercising his democratic suffrage and organising a political support group.
To, therefore, suggest that he should sit on the sidelines while other private citizens and influencers exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to endorse and fund candidates is to demand a double standard that borders on hypocrisy.
Political association in a democratic society is rooted in choice, conviction, and interest.
If Tompolo believes that the current administration’s policies, particularly in stabilised oil production, maritime security, infrastructure, increased allocation to states, security, especially the State Police bill which 25 state Houses of Assembly have already approved, among others, align with the long-term prosperity of his constituency and the nation, he is within his full constitutional rights to persuade others to share that vision.
Mobilising grassroots support at the ward, household, and polling-unit levels through peaceful door-to-door engagement is the very essence of citizen participation in governance. It is political organising at its most fundamental level.
Those rushing to judge him prematurely are mistaking political enthusiasm for wrongdoing.
A citizen’s choice to donate campaign vehicles, set up organisational structures, and hold political rallies across different geopolitical zones is standard practice in presidential politics globally. In democratic climates, such actions are celebrated as evidence of civic investment and grassroots empowerment. Why should a different standard be constructed when the participant happens to be an influential opinion leader like Tompolo?
The online backlash and critical editorials reveal a deeper prejudice.
Nigeria’s democracy matures when citizens participate freely without fear of unwarranted public trial by the media.
The PBAT Door-to-Door Movement is operating entirely within the boundaries of civil political engagement and statutory electoral law. Rather than attacking the messenger, critics would do well to focus their energy on robust policy debates, engaging the electorate on ideas rather than seeking to curtail the lawful rights of individuals.
Tompolo has broken no law, breached no electoral act provision, and violated no constitutional mandate. He is simply exercising his fundamental right as a free citizen of Nigeria to associate, express his preference, and campaign for the candidate he trusts to lead the country. The misplaced outrage and hasty judgments filling opinion pages ought to be laid to rest.
In a free nation, the right to choose belongs to everyone and Tompolo is no exception.
Agbo, a strategic and development communication expert writes from Abuja. agbocatherine@yahoo.com
