The claims made by Basil Okoh regarding the public hearing for the proposed Anioma State and the alleged opposition by former Governor Ifeanyi Okowa and Governor Sheriff Oborevwori warrant a critical and measured response. While the piece raises valid concerns about the slow progress of the Anioma State creation process, it leans heavily on unverified allegations, speculative narratives, and divisive rhetoric that risk undermining the collective aspiration for Anioma State.
First, the assertion that the public hearing was moved to Uyo due to threats of disruption in Asaba lacks substantiation. No concrete evidence is provided to support the claim that “brigands” were recruited or that rehearsals for disruption occurred. Such inflammatory language, without verifiable proof, fuels unnecessary tension and casts aspersions on the integrity of the process. The decision to hold the hearing in Uyo could be logistical or procedural, public hearings are often held in neutral or central locations to ensure broader participation and security. In the absence of official confirmation, these claims remain speculative.
Second, the accusation that Okowa and Oborevwori are actively sabotaging the Anioma State project for personal political gain is a grave one. Okoh alleges that Okowa opposes the state’s creation due to rivalry with Senator Ned Nwoko and that Oborevwori fears a loss of political influence. These claims, however, are based on anecdotal “leaks” and unverified reports. Notably, Okowa’s public support for Anioma State, acknowledged by Okoh himself, contradicts the narrative of his alleged “subterranean” opposition. It is inconsistent to accuse someone of undermining a cause they have publicly endorsed without clear and compelling evidence of duplicity.
In addition, Governor Sheriff Oborevwori would be one of the happiest persons if Anioma State is created. The joy will be for both the Anioma people and the rest of the state. His commitment to equity, inclusion, and balanced development across all senatorial districts is well documented, and there is no credible basis for portraying him as an obstacle to the legitimate aspirations of Anioma people.
The claim that Delta State House of Assembly members have refused to sign documents supporting Anioma State due to Okowa and Oborevwori’s influence also merits scrutiny. The process of state creation in Nigeria, as outlined in Section 8 of the 1999 Constitution, is complex and requires approval from multiple stakeholders, including two-thirds of state assemblies, local government councils, and a national referendum. If reluctance among assembly members exists, it may stem from procedural concerns, political calculations, or genuine reservations about the feasibility of state creation under a civilian administration, not necessarily blind allegiance to Okowa or Oborevwori. Ignoring these possibilities in favour of a conspiracy theory oversimplifies a complex issue.
Okoh’s piece further neglects the broader context of state creation in Nigeria. The process is inherently challenging, requiring consensus across diverse political and ethnic constituencies. While the creation of the Midwest Region in 1963 under civilian rule is often cited as a precedent, it remains a historical exception. Most Nigerian states were created during military regimes that bypassed democratic constraints. The current democratic framework, though more inclusive, is also more arduous, constrained by competing regional interests, constitutional requirements, and budgetary realities. To cast Okowa and Oborevwori as the sole obstacles to Anioma State creation is to ignore these systemic challenges and the national consensus required.
Moreover, the piece’s confrontational tone risks alienating vital stakeholders. Labeling Okowa and Oborevwori as enemies of Anioma’s progress and accusing legislators of betrayal could deepen divisions within Delta State. The success of the Anioma State movement depends on unity, not only among Anioma people but also with other ethnic groups in Delta, such as the Urhobo, who may have legitimate concerns about the implications of state creation. Instead of fostering constructive dialogue, Okoh’s rhetoric pits Anioma against others, potentially jeopardizing the broader coalition needed to actualize the dream.
Comments
Post a Comment