Peter Obi Raises Moral Questions Over Farouk Allegations
- spenohub
- Dec 22, 2025
- 2 min read

Peter Obi has weighed in on the controversy surrounding Farouk Ahmed, chief executive officer of the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority, calling for accountability, transparency, and a broader national reflection on public responsibility.
In a statement shared via his verified X handle, Obi referenced claims by Aliko Dangote, president of the Dangote Group, that Farouk allegedly spent about $5 million on the education of his four children in Switzerland.
Obi noted that the allegation, if true, raises serious questions about public trust and moral responsibility, particularly in a country battling deep inequality and an education crisis.
“At current exchange rates, $5 million is approximately ₦7.5 billion,” Obi said, stressing that Nigeria currently has over 18 million out-of-school children. He clarified that the debate is not about parents investing in their children’s education but about “scale, context, and moral consequence, especially when such spending is attributed to a public official in a country with extreme inequality.”
Drawing a contrast, Obi outlined how the same amount could be deployed locally to transform Nigeria’s education sector.
He argued that ₦7.5 billion could establish dozens of school blocks, employ hundreds of teachers, and educate thousands of children annually through a self-sustaining funding model. According to him, such an approach would permanently address access to education while creating jobs and strengthening institutions.
Obi further described the controversy as symbolic of a wider governance challenge. “The Farouk controversy, therefore, is not merely about one man. It is a mirror held up to our collective conscience,” he said, questioning whether privilege will continue to thrive alongside neglect or whether responsibility will finally match opportunity.
He warned that neglecting education has far-reaching consequences for society, echoing classical and contemporary concerns about governance and institutional decay.



Comments