Former Gov. Udom Emmanuel
OPINION
By Comrade Ini Ememobong
The demand for accountability from leaders, particularly those entrusted with managing the commonwealth of others, is both necessary and non-negotiable. In constitutional democracies, accountability is not a mere expectation; it is aptly codified within the legal framework to ensure that leaders serve the people transparently and responsibly.
In Nigeria, like other constitutional democracies, the processes for ensuring accountability are woven into the fabric of our laws and institutions. Accountability is always demanded from public officials- before, during, and after their tenure.
Additionally, in Akwa Ibom state, the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Assembly undertakes a comprehensive review of the executive arm, raising queries where there are ambiguities. Examples abound where past political office holders have been called back many years after their tenure to answer public account committee queries and make refunds. All of these are in addition to the anti-graft agencies which are on the watch for infringements that may have occurred during the administration. I outlined these to show the robust accountability processes inherent in our country and to completely agree that any legitimate demand for accountability is normal and in fact, expected.
Positionality
I served as the Special Assistant (Political Matters) to the Governor and later Commissioner for Information (for the last two years and nine months) in the Udom Emmanuel-led administration. In those offices, I was at a time, an adviser to the Governor and later the Spokesperson of that administration. The clarification of my positionality is to avoid any ambiguity therefrom. Flowing from engagement with that administration, I feel duty-bound to offer explanations (not a defence), and add some perspectives to issues concerning our service tenure. This will be done with utmost respect to all the parties involved because I am a firm believer in the principle that arguments can be made on issues without insults being hurled at the persons involved. I will therefore proceed to address the issues under the subheads below:
The petition and the petitioners: Asking questions or passing judgement?
As mentioned earlier, no reasonable person is averse to a demand for accountability, not even Mr. Udom Emmanuel himself, as stated by his Media Aide, Stephen Abia Esq in a recent media briefing. However, in the instant case, the petitioners having submitted their petition to investigative agencies, seeking accountability from the last administration, have undertaken a sustained vitriolic media trial of the immediate past Governor. This approach (media trial) is questionable. We agree that it is common knowledge, based on the principle of equifinality, that most people explore two broad courts-the courts of law and that of public opinion. The former has detailed rules of procedure, especially governing the admission and evaluation of evidence, but the latter, unfortunately, is a free-for-all, no-holds-barred environment where anything, including manifest falsehood, is accepted, especially if the proponent can shout louder. People in search of the truth should ordinarily choose the former over and above the latter.
The media trial purveys allegations that sounded more like final court judgements. For example, they accuse Mr. Udom Emmanuel of purchasing a house in America with funds from Akwa Ibom State Government, while serving as Secretary to the State Government. Unknown to them, that from 2013 when Mr. Udom Emmanuel was appointed till 2014 when he resigned to contest for the governorship, he didn’t receive a salary or any allowance from the state government and he was not in charge of contract awards or any other money-yielding government enterprise. So how could he have corruptly enriched himself then? However, it is not in doubt that long before coming into government, Mr. Udom Emmanuel as an Executive Director and former Chief Financial Officer of leading financial institution like Zenith Bank, was already a man of means, like bankers of his ilk. We concede that while these are not an assurance that someone of means cannot commit fraud, it is however an indication of existing wealth prior to public sector exposure.
Beyond that, an analysis of the disposition and demands of the petitioners paints a picture that the only acceptable outcome for them is sending Udom Emmanuel to jail, irrespective of his guilt or innocence. To accomplish this, they may have either neglected or intentionally refused to make any reference to the entries in the statutory books of account by that administration, rather preferring to make high claims of fraud of humongous sums, playing to the emotions, not reason of the populace. It is needful to state that during the tenure of that administration, apart from the statutory channels of accountability, Governor Udom Emmanuel, as he then was, voluntarily submitted himself to public accountability through live media engagements with the citizens via the programme The Governor Speaks, in addition to frequent media chats with all journalists in the state. These engagements were aired live and uncensored.
It is my view that a sincere demand for accountability must be done with an open mind rather than a judgemental mindset, or else the petitioners will be blinded by their passion, against the truth. Every time people have used deep anger in the prosecution of any matter, it has always turned to persecution, and one of the earliest examples is recorded in the Bible where the accusers of Christ insisted on his death even when Pilate found no guilt in him. They even preferred the release of a convicted criminal to the acquittal of an innocent man who came to serve and save them. In Nigeria, former Vice President Alex Ekweme was accused of corruption along with other politicians of his time, and incarcerated. After his trial, he was discharged and acquitted, but his good name had already been stained.
It is for this purpose that the law provides for and upholds the presumption of innocence of an accused person until convicted.
The question for the petitioners is, with the current modus operandi adopted by you, if Mr. Udom Emmanuel is exonerated of these accusations, how will you remedy the harm done to his person and personality?
Conclusion
While no administration is flawless, demands for accountability must adhere to established legal processes, respecting the principles of fair hearing and justice. The current media-driven approach risks undermining these principles, turning genuine calls for accountability into campaigns of persecution. It’s crucial to allow investigative bodies to conduct their work without undue external pressures or prejudgements.
The much I have known Mr. Udom Emmanuel, I am certain that an attack like this shouldn’t surprise him, having risen to the enviable height of a Governor and reigned for eight years, against the wishes of powerful godfathers and co-aspirants. His trajectory and safe landing with a competent successor, Pastor Umo Eno are enough to earn him a series of attacks.
As a member of the Executive Council (Exco) at that time, I can say that no major decision was made without recourse to Exco approval, and the relevant ministries and their heads can give an eloquent account of their stewardship. The Governor was not making decisions alone or running the state as his private enterprise. I can assure you that when it is time to provide answers, the underpinnings and basis of the decisions taken at that time will be made available.
I know that history and posterity are the ultimate judges of human conduct and having completed our work under that administration, we had submitted ourselves to the judgement of history, people (seen and unseen) and God Almighty, the truly fair judge.
Please let the media trial abate.
Comrade Ememobong, Immediate past Commissioner for Information, Akwa Ibom State
