PETER MBAH DENIES INVOLVEMENT IN WITHDRAWAL OF VENUE FOR PETER OBI’S ENUGU EVENT

Enugu State Governor Peter Mbah has denied allegations that he ordered the withdrawal of a venue booked for a political town hall meeting involving former Anambra State Governor Peter Obi and former Kano State Governor Rabiu Kwankwaso. The controversy followed reports that Amadeo Event Centre in Enugu withdrew permission for an event organised under the Nigeria Democratic Congress banner. The meeting was scheduled for Thursday, October 29, 2026, and was expected to feature Obi, the party’s presidential candidate, and Kwankwaso, his running mate, organisers reportedly expressed dissatisfaction after the venue became unavailable shortly before the scheduled meeting. In a statement published on his social media account, Mbah described allegations that he ordered the venue’s withdrawal as false. He denied involvement in the decision and argued that he should not be held responsible for the actions of a privately owned facility, the governor also warned against making defamatory claims and said those who believed their rights had been violated could seek legal redress, the allegations against the governor have not been established as fact. The controversy has attracted attention because of the political significance of an event featuring prominent opposition figures. Political parties require opportunities to organise meetings, communicate their programmes and engage supporters. Questions surrounding access to event venues can therefore become politically sensitive, particularly when they arise shortly before a scheduled gathering. However, determining responsibility requires more than social media videos or accusations from interested parties, the venue’s management, the event organisers and other relevant parties would need to provide information about why the booking was cancelled. The key questions are whether the organisers secured an alternative venue, whether the event eventually took place and whether the venue’s management has publicly explained its decision, until further evidence emerges, the controversy should be reported as a dispute involving allegations and denials rather than proof that the state government deliberately obstructed the event.