Does Kenneth Okonkwo Think Politics Is Like Nollywood?

There is no denying the fact that Kenneth Okonkwo’s political journey has become one of the most intriguing transformations in contemporary Nigerian public life. Once celebrated almost exclusively as a Nollywood icon, he has in recent years reinvented himself as a political commentator, activist, and participant. Yet, watching his public conduct, especially his seemingly unrelenting fixation on former Labour Party presidential candidate, Mr. Peter Obi, one cannot help but ask a provocative question: “Does Kenneth Okonkwo think politics is like Nollywood?”

The question is neither frivolous nor unfair. In fact, it arises naturally from the way Okonkwo has conducted himself since his highly publicized fallout with Obi. What began as political disagreement has gradually evolved into something that appears far deeper, more personal, and certainly more dramatic than ordinary political criticism.

In Nollywood, conflict is the fuel that drives the plot. Every memorable movie needs a protagonist and an antagonist. Heroes are often defined by their battles against villains, while supporting characters frequently remain relevant only because of their association with the central figure. The audience is kept engaged through suspense, emotional outbursts, betrayals, confrontations, and endless twists.

Politics, however, is supposed to be different. This is as politics is fundamentally about ideas, governance, policy alternatives, and solutions to societal challenges. While disagreements are inevitable, the focus should ideally remain on issues rather than personalities. Yet, in Okonkwo's case, one often gets the impression that Peter Obi has become the central character around whom much of his political commentary revolves.

Indeed, it is difficult to recall any major media appearance by Kenneth Okonkwo in recent times that does not somehow circle back to Obi. Whether discussing opposition politics, coalition-building, electoral reforms, party structures, or leadership questions, the name: Obi almost invariably will be mentioned in the conversation.

This has led many observers to wonder whether Okonkwo's political relevance is increasingly being tied to his criticism of the former Labour Party flag bearer.

Ironically, this situation resembles a familiar Nollywood storyline. There are actors who achieve lasting fame through the strength of their own performances, and there are others whose visibility depends largely on their association with bigger stars. In political communication, something similar often occurs. Some politicians become known for what they stand for. Others become known for whom they oppose or support.

The danger is obvious. When opposition to a single individual becomes the dominant feature of one's public identity, the critic risks becoming trapped in the shadow of the very person he seeks to diminish. The more he attacks, the more he inadvertently reinforces the importance of his target. This appears to be the paradox confronting Kenneth Okonkwo today.

For someone who once stood firmly beside Obi and vigorously defended him, the intensity of his subsequent criticism has often appeared excessive. Political disagreements are normal. Political divorces are even more common. Around the world, politicians frequently part ways and pursue different paths without making their former allies the centrepiece of their public engagements.

What makes Okonkwo's case different is the persistence. Months after the separation, Obi continues to occupy a remarkable amount of space in his public interventions. The frequency has become so noticeable that many Nigerians now anticipate that any interview featuring Kenneth Okonkwo will eventually arrive at the Peter Obi destination. That expectation alone should be cause for reflection.

In politics, perception matters. When people begin to associate a politician or commentator primarily with attacks on another individual rather than with a distinct political vision, questions naturally emerge about priorities and motivations. This is where the Nollywood analogy becomes particularly relevant. Actors understand audience psychology. They know controversy attracts attention. They know conflict generates headlines. They know dramatic statements produce social media engagement. They know audiences are drawn to rivalry. The entertainment industry thrives on this formula.

Politics, however, cannot survive indefinitely on drama. A politician may attract temporary attention through sensational statements, but long-term credibility depends on ideas, consistency, and constructive engagement. Citizens facing inflation, unemployment, insecurity, failing infrastructure, and declining purchasing power are ultimately more interested in solutions than spectacles.

This raises another question: What exactly is Kenneth Okonkwo offering Nigerians beyond his criticism of Peter Obi? The question is important because criticism, by itself, is not a political ideology. If Obi is wrong, what is the alternative? If Labour Party failed, what is the superior political platform? If opposition politics is flawed, what should replace it? If coalition efforts are misguided, what strategy would better serve Nigeria? These are the conversations many Nigerians would like to hear more frequently from Kenneth Okonkwo whenever he is parleying with Journalists or whenever he on Social media tweeting and posting. Unfortunately, such discussions often become overshadowed by the recurring focus on Obi.

There is also a psychological dimension to the matter. In every profession, former insiders sometimes become the harshest critics of the institutions or individuals they once supported. This phenomenon is not unique to Nigeria. Former party loyalists often possess information and insights unavailable to outsiders. Consequently, their criticisms can be valuable and enlightening.

However, there is a fine line between principled criticism and obsession. Once criticism begins to appear relentless, repetitive, and disproportionate, people stop paying attention to the substance and start questioning the motive. That is precisely the risk Kenneth Okonkwo faces.

His critics, including this writer, increasingly accuse him of suffering from what some have mockingly described as "Obilaria", a condition characterized by an inability to discuss politics without mentioning Obi. While the term is obviously satirical, it reflects a growing public perception that his political commentary has become overly fixated on a single individual.

Whether that perception is fair or not is beside the point. In politics, perception often becomes reality. The irony is that Kenneth Okonkwo possesses qualities that should allow him to transcend such labels. He is articulate, educated, media-savvy, and experienced in public communication. Few politicians can match his ability to command attention during interviews or articulate arguments with confidence. Yet those strengths risk being overshadowed when the conversation repeatedly returns to the same target.

Perhaps the most important lesson here is that politics is not Nollywood. In Nollywood, a character can survive for two hours by focusing entirely on defeating an enemy. Once the credits roll, the story ends.

Contrariwise, politics never ends. Citizens continue living with the consequences of decisions long after television cameras disappear. Roads must still be built. Schools must still function. Hospitals must still operate. Jobs must still be created. Security challenges must still be addressed.

Unlike a movie, governance cannot rely on dramatic plot twists. It requires vision, patience, and substance.

Kenneth Okonkwo undoubtedly understands performance. He mastered it in Nollywood. He understands narrative construction, audience engagement, and public attention. Those skills have undoubtedly served him well in politics. But politics demands something more profound than performance. It demands purpose.

And until his public engagements become known more for the ideas he advances than for the personalities he attacks, the question will continue to linger in the minds of many Nigerians:

Does Kenneth Okonkwo think politics is like Nollywood, where every story requires a permanent villain, or does he recognize that in the real world of governance, the audience eventually grows tired of the drama and starts asking for solutions?