Banner Online News

By Chukwudi Abiandu

There is a curious habit in Nigerian politics: the longer a politician occupies the corridors of power, the more some admirers mistake political longevity for competence, familiarity for popularity, political machinery for public acceptance, and the ability to command a crowd for the capacity to transform society.

Dr Norbert Chiazor’s article, “Senate: Okowa is the political mascot of Delta North, Ochei is the fitting challenger,” is a classic illustration of this political confusion.

The article seeks to establish a hierarchy in which former Delta State Governor, Dr Ifeanyi Okowa, sits comfortably at the summit, while Rt. Hon. (Engr.) Victor O. Ochei, Esq., FNSE, is assigned the subordinate role of an ambitious challenger who must acknowledge the supposed superiority of his political elder.

But politics is not an exhibition of masquerades. The Senate is not a stage for colourful spectacles, and elections are not beauty contests in which the most familiar face automatically wins the crown.

The fundamental question Chiazor conspicuously fails to answer is this: Better in what demonstrable respect, and better for whom?

Better at accumulating political influence? Better at building a network of loyalists? Better at winning elections? Or better at improving the lives of ordinary people whose votes confer the mandate to govern?

These are four different questions. A politician may excel at the first three and still leave citizens wondering what tangible improvements his years in power have brought to their communities.

For Delta North, the 2027 senatorial contest should not be about who has spent more years in the political arena, whose photograph appears on more campaign banners, or whose political network commands greater attention. It should be about who can offer the most credible representation, a demonstrable commitment to public service and a fresh approach to the challenges facing Anioma.

On that score, Chiazor’s declaration that Okowa is better than Ochei, “by far”, is not an established fact. It is an opinion dressed up as an electoral verdict. And an opinion, however elegantly expressed, cannot substitute for evidence.

THE ASIODU COMMITTEE WAS NOT AN ETERNAL CERTIFICATE OF EXCELLENCE

Chiazor reaches back to 2014, when an Anioma Congress screening exercise reportedly preferred Okowa among the aspirants seeking to become governor of Delta State.

He invokes the reputation of the late Asagba of Asaba, Professor Chike Edozien, and the standing of Chief Philip Asiodu, who reportedly headed the screening committee. The committee’s assessment of Okowa’s personality, intelligence, depth and political acceptability is presented as evidence of his exceptional standing.

But this argument confuses a historical recommendation with an everlasting endorsement.

Even if every detail of the screening exercise is accepted as presented, what exactly does it prove about Okowa’s suitability for another elective office in 2027?

It establishes, at most, that a committee considered him a suitable candidate for the governorship at that particular time. It does not establish that every subsequent decision he made in office was exemplary, that every development challenge was satisfactorily addressed, or that Delta North must forever defer to his political judgment.

Chief Asiodu’s reputation cannot serve as a substitute for an independent examination of Okowa’s performance. Nor can the revered memory of Professor Edozien be enlisted to settle a contemporary electoral contest that belongs to the people.

The relevant question is not whether Okowa impressed a screening committee in 2014. It is whether the experience of his governorship subsequently strengthened the case for entrusting him with another mandate.

A screening committee can assess a candidate’s perceived qualities before he assumes office. The electorate, however, has the benefit of judging what the candidate actually does with power. That distinction is fundamental.

The 2014 recommendation was not a blank cheque extending indefinitely into the future. It was not a certificate declaring Okowa politically superior to every Anioma son or daughter who might emerge in subsequent years. And it certainly was not a declaration that Victor Ochei, or any other candidate, must remain permanently subordinate to him.

If Okowa was selected because of his intelligence, depth and acceptability, those qualities should be evaluated against the record of his administration, not endlessly recycled as unquestionable credentials. The real examination of a governor begins after he takes office, not when a committee recommends him for it.

EIGHT YEARS IN GOVERNMENT: WHERE IS THE COMPELLING DEVELOPMENT LEGACY?

Chiazor celebrates Okowa’s tenure as Delta State’s first governor of Anioma origin, describing his departure from office in terms of “resonant plaudits”.

But the historical significance of producing the first governor from a particular ethnic or geographical constituency must not be confused with proof of satisfactory governance.

The pride of having an Anioma son in Government House is understandable. Yet identity is not infrastructure, ancestry is not employment, and geographical representation is not a substitute for development.

After eight years as governor, Okowa’s record deserves a harder and more practical examination.

What lasting improvements did his administration deliver to the network of community roads across Delta North? What measurable progress was achieved in securing farming communities and protecting rural livelihoods? How adequately were public schools maintained? What opportunities were created for unemployed young people seeking productive work and economic independence?

These are not peripheral questions. They concern the daily experience of the very people whose votes a former governor now seeks.

Communities cannot travel on political accolades. Farmers cannot cultivate their land on the strength of a former governor’s reputation. Pupils cannot learn beneath leaking roofs because their state once produced a governor of their own ethnic extraction.

And unemployed graduates cannot build viable futures on the sentimental assurance that their former governor remains a towering political personality.

The condition of individual roads, schools and communities must be assessed against verifiable evidence, budgets, projects delivered and the responsibilities of the relevant administrations. But the larger point is inescapable: eight years in Government House entitle a former governor to no exemption from scrutiny.

If Okowa’s record is as impressive as Chiazor insists, the appropriate response is to place the achievements before the public, identify the projects delivered, explain the outcomes and demonstrate how his experience would translate into better senatorial representation.

If the defence rests principally on personality, stature, political history and the number of people around him, then it has not answered the central question of public value.

Delta North does not need a former governor merely to remind the people that he once governed Delta State. It needs a senator who can demonstrate what he intends to do differently, what he can achieve legislatively and how he will make his constituents’ interests count in Abuja.

A former governor’s greatest qualification for the Senate should be the demonstrable value of his record, not the length of his résumé.

POLITICAL LONGEVITY IS NOT A MEASURE OF WISDOM

Chiazor declares that “politics, like pedigree, is hierarchical”, before invoking a series of political comparisons to establish that some candidates naturally stand above others. This is, perhaps, the most revealing weakness in his argument.

Politics is not a hereditary institution in which seniority confers permanent superiority. It is a public trust in which the electorate has the right to reassess every candidate, irrespective of age, title, experience or past office. There is a difference between respecting experience and surrendering judgment to it.

Experience can produce wisdom, but it can also reinforce complacency. Long service can sharpen a politician’s understanding of public affairs, but it can equally entrench a political culture resistant to renewal.

The adage that age has nothing to do with wisdom is relevant here. Methuselah’s longevity does not automatically confer Solomon’s discernment, just as years in government do not automatically make one candidate more suitable than another.

Ochei need not have occupied the same number of political offices as Okowa to be worthy of consideration. The proper test is whether his experience, professional background, legislative exposure, leadership record and programme for Delta North make him capable of delivering effective representation.

Ochei’s supporters have a legitimate basis for presenting his candidacy as an opportunity for generational renewal. But that case should stand on his own record and proposals, not merely on the argument that Okowa belongs to an older generation.

The Senate needs experience. It also needs fresh thinking, energy, accountability and representatives who understand that public office is a responsibility rather than a personal entitlement.

The question is not whether an older politician should be disqualified because of age. It is whether his continued return to office is justified by his performance and the alternatives available.

That is the standard Chiazor must apply to Okowa, rather than demanding that Delta North accept a political hierarchy in which the former governor is automatically placed beyond challenge.

THE POLITICAL MASCOT: A SPECTACLE IS NOT A DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Chiazor calls Okowa “the political mascot of Delta North” and compares him to the Ijele masquerade, a colourful spectacle admired by friends and envied by foes.

It is a striking literary image, but it does remarkably little to establish the former governor’s fitness for the Senate.

A masquerade may command attention. A senator must command the facts, understand legislation, defend constituency interests and produce results.

A colourful political personality may attract followers. A competent representative must be able to explain what those followers, and the wider electorate, stand to gain from his presence in the National Assembly.

The metaphor inadvertently illustrates the problem with the article: it celebrates the spectacle surrounding Okowa without sufficiently demonstrating the substance beneath it.

Political admiration is not the same as public benefit. Visibility is not the same as performance. And the ability to dominate political conversations does not necessarily translate into the ability to improve public services or create opportunities for citizens.

Nor does the existence of opponents prove that a politician is envied. Opposition can arise from disagreement over policies, performance, political choices or competing visions of leadership.

Chiazor’s praise may describe how he perceives Okowa’s political standing. It does not settle the question of how voters should evaluate him.

Indeed, if Okowa is to be presented as a unifying figure capable of representing all of Delta North, he must be judged by the breadth of his appeal, his willingness to accommodate dissent and his ability to advance the interests of constituents beyond his immediate political circle.

The Senate is not looking for a mascot. It needs a representative.

NAME RECOGNITION IS NOT THE SAME AS POPULAR ACCEPTABILITY

Another of Chiazor’s central claims is that Okowa possesses name recognition, organisational strength, an entrenched grassroots base, interpersonal relationships and social capital.

These may be genuine political assets. A former governor who has spent years in public life will naturally have an established network and a degree of visibility. But the existence of a political network does not prove that its preferred candidate enjoys an unassailable mandate.

There is a difference between people knowing a politician and people wanting him to represent them again. There is a difference between party structures and voter preference, just as there is a difference between the loyalty of political associates and the judgment of citizens who must live with the consequences of government.

An established political organisation can mobilise supporters. It can also create the impression of invincibility that disappears when voters begin to weigh the alternatives.

Chiazor dismisses “jaded slogans” and “orchestrated propaganda”, but the same standard must apply to claims that Okowa is already the inevitable winner. Where is the independently verified evidence that Delta North has settled on Okowa? What polling data establishes that his support is overwhelming? What credible assessment demonstrates that Ochei’s candidacy is merely an exercise in futility?

Without such evidence, predicting an Okowa victory is an expression of confidence, not a reliable electoral conclusion.

The claim that Okowa has the strongest political structure does not establish that the people have chosen him. The assertion that he is ubiquitous does not mean he is universally accepted. Indeed, a contest becomes meaningful precisely because the electorate can reconsider a familiar politician and compare him with an alternative.

Ochei’s candidacy represents an opportunity to make that comparison on the basis of competence, public service, legislative priorities and the future Anioma wants to build.

If Okowa is confident in his record, he should welcome that examination rather than rely on the assumption that his political machinery has already settled the outcome.

THE FIEFdom QUESTION: WHO OWNS ANIOMA POLITICS?

The most consequential issue raised by Okowa’s candidacy is not the number of political associates around him. It is whether Delta North should continue to operate within a political culture in which a dominant network exercises disproportionate influence over the emergence of candidates and the distribution of political opportunities.

Critics of the old order have long questioned whether too much power has become concentrated in the hands of a small circle of political actors who influence who gets nominated, who receives political backing and who is considered acceptable within the establishment. Such concerns deserve serious examination rather than dismissal as propaganda.

No single politician owns Anioma. No former governor possesses an exclusive franchise over Delta North’s political future. And no network of loyalists, however influential, should be permitted to substitute its preferences for the free judgment of the electorate.

The democratic question is straightforward: should the political future of nine local government areas be determined principally by established power brokers, or should voters have a genuine opportunity to choose among candidates with different ideas, backgrounds and approaches to representation? This is where Ochei’s candidacy can make its strongest intervention.

The case for Ochei is not simply that he is younger, nor that he is challenging a former governor. It is that his candidacy can provide a platform for demanding a more open, competitive and accountable political culture; one in which political authority is earned through service rather than presumed from established relationships.

Such a change must be demonstrated through conduct, not slogans. Ochei must show that he will be accessible to constituents, transparent about his legislative priorities, receptive to criticism and unwilling to turn public office into a private political possession.

He must also explain how he intends to work with other elected representatives and government institutions, irrespective of party affiliation, to advance the interests of Anioma. The electorate should expect these commitments from him.

But it should equally resist the proposition that the existing political establishment deserves another mandate simply because it is established.

THE FALLACY OF THE ELUMELU, NGOZI OKOLIE AND TONY NWAKA COMPARISONS

Chiazor invokes Ndudi Elumelu, Ngozi Okolie, Tony Nwaka and other political figures to reinforce his theory that some candidates possess a higher political standing than others. Yet these comparisons do not establish Okowa’s superiority over Ochei.

Each election has its own circumstances: the candidates involved, the issues at stake, the strength of competing parties, constituency interests and the electorate’s assessment of available choices.

Even if Chiazor’s hypothetical comparisons were accepted, they would prove little beyond his belief that political experience and established profiles matter. They do not demonstrate that the same formula determines the Delta North senatorial contest in 2027.

More importantly, the electorate is not required to choose candidates according to a rigid hierarchy of political stature.

A former speaker may possess legislative experience. A former governor may have executive experience. An engineer and lawyer may bring a different combination of technical, professional and public-service experience. The proper task is to evaluate how each candidate’s experience fits the responsibilities of the office being sought.

Ochei’s record should therefore be examined on its own merits, including his time in the Delta State House of Assembly, his service as Speaker, his professional qualifications and the quality of the legislative agenda he proposes for the Senate.

Okowa’s record should be examined with equal rigour, including his eight years as governor and the lessons that period offers about his approach to governance.

The Senate is not an award for the politician with the most impressive list of previous titles. It is an institution whose members must legislate, scrutinise executive action, participate in national debates and defend the interests of their constituents. The candidate who best meets those responsibilities should prevail, regardless of who has the more imposing political pedigree.

THE OLD ORDER CANNOT CLAIM A MONOPOLY ON EXPERIENCE

Nigeria’s present economic and social difficulties have made it imperative to interrogate the quality of political leadership at every level.

Citizens are entitled to ask why years of democratic government have not delivered adequate economic security, sufficient employment opportunities, reliable public services and the confidence that public institutions work in their interests. Delta North is not insulated from those questions.

The argument against recycling established political figures is not that every older politician is incapable or that every younger candidate is automatically better. Such a claim would be as intellectually weak as the proposition that Okowa is necessarily superior because he has occupied higher offices.The real argument is that political experience must be assessed by what it has produced.

A generation of politicians cannot demand perpetual public trust while treating their years in office as proof of their own indispensability.

Where the public believes that poverty remains widespread, opportunities are inadequate and communities still struggle with basic development needs, political leaders must offer more than elaborate accounts of their influence. They must account for their stewardship.

Okowa’s record as governor is therefore relevant to his senatorial ambition. His supporters cannot reasonably celebrate his experience as an asset while treating scrutiny of that same experience as an attack on his personality.

If he seeks another mandate, he should explain what his administration achieved, what remained unfinished, what he learnt from his years in office and how that experience would make him a more effective senator.

He should also explain what he intends to do in the Senate that he could not accomplish as governor. These are fair questions. They are not personal insults.

For Ochei, the challenge is to present a credible alternative that demonstrates how a different style of representation can deliver better results. He must resist the temptation to make his candidacy solely about opposing Okowa. His own vision must be sufficiently clear and compelling to stand independently of the former governor’s political fortunes.

That is the difference between a protest candidacy and a serious bid for public office.

OCHEI: CHARACTER, COMPETENCE, CAPACITY AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE

Chiazor describes Ochei as “good” but insists that Okowa is “better, by far”. The assertion is sweeping, but the article does not provide a comparative assessment capable of sustaining it.

Where is the detailed evaluation of their legislative abilities? Where is the comparison of their respective approaches to constituency representation? Where is the examination of their plans for employment, education, agricultural security, rural infrastructure and the empowerment of young people?

Where is the evidence that Okowa’s previous executive experience necessarily makes him a more effective legislator than Ochei? These questions remain unanswered.

Ochei’s professional background as an engineer and lawyer, together with his legislative experience, provides a legitimate basis for presenting him as a candidate with a different set of skills and perspectives. His supporters are entitled to argue that these qualities, combined with energy, accessibility and a clear programme, make him a compelling choice for Delta North.

But his campaign must do more than invoke youthfulness or describe him as a go-getter. It must demonstrate how those qualities will translate into public value.

What legislation will he champion? How will he scrutinise national expenditure and executive policies? What will he do to advance rural roads, education, agricultural productivity and the security of farming communities? How will he pursue employment opportunities and economic investment for Delta North? What mechanisms will he establish to report back to constituents and remain accountable between elections?

These are the questions that can turn Ochei’s promise into a credible public-service proposition.

His supporters’ central argument should be that the constituency deserves a competitive choice and that political renewal is possible when voters judge candidates on their records, plans and capacity to deliver.

The slogan associated with his campaign—“OCHEI: CHARACTER. COMPETENCE. CAPACITY.”—will carry real weight only if those qualities are substantiated by conduct, clear policy commitments and measurable results. The opportunity before him is significant. But it must be earned.

THE SENATE IS NOT A RETIREMENT HOME FOR FORMER GOVERNORS

Chiazor paints an appealing picture of Okowa rising in the Senate, speaking with restraint, unifying his colleagues and consummating Anioma’s interests with affection. It is an attractive projection of a future performance. It is not evidence that the performance will occur.

A senator’s effectiveness is not measured principally by the elegance of his speeches, the restraint of his body language or the warmth of his interpersonal relationships. Those qualities may be useful, but they cannot replace legislative competence and tangible results. The real test is what the senator does.

Will he sponsor or support legislation that addresses the pressing needs of his constituents? Will he use oversight responsibilities to demand accountability from government agencies? Will he pursue relevant national projects and investments for Delta North? Will he be transparent about constituency interventions and their outcomes? Will he remain accessible to citizens outside election seasons? These are the standards by which Okowa and Ochei should be judged.

The Senate is not an extension of Government House, nor is it a ceremonial destination for former governors seeking another chapter in public life.

Executive experience can be valuable in the legislature, but the two offices have different responsibilities. A governor exercises executive authority within a state; a senator participates in national lawmaking, representation and oversight. Indeed, Okowa was once in the Senate before becoming a governor. It therefore, reinforces the question being asked by the people, what was his achievement as a Senator?

A candidate seeking to move from one office to the other must demonstrate why that transition serves the public interest.

For Okowa, the burden is to show how his experience as governor will produce better representation than the alternatives. For Ochei, it is to show how his legislative experience, professional knowledge and proposed agenda equip him to represent Delta North effectively. Neither man should be judged by assumptions. Both should be judged by evidence.

A HYMN IS NOT AN ELECTORAL MANIFESTO

Chiazor concludes with a reference to Okowa’s rendition of the Christian hymn On Christ the Solid Rock I Stand, interpreting it as a message of blessed assurance for Delta North.

Faith is a deeply personal source of strength for many people, and there is nothing wrong with a politician drawing inspiration from religious belief. But religious expression cannot settle an electoral contest.

A hymn is not a legislative agenda. A profession of faith is not a substitute for accountability. And the invocation of God cannot establish that one candidate is more deserving of public office than another.

In a democracy, candidates must be evaluated by their conduct, competence, policies and capacity to serve all constituents, including those who do not share their religious convictions.

If Okowa’s political hope rests on “God and guts”, as Chiazor suggests, Ochei and every other candidate are equally entitled to draw strength from their own convictions.

Ultimately, however, the ballot belongs to the electorate.

It is not for a commentator to declare that one candidate has been divinely or politically ordained to prevail. It is for voters to assess the alternatives and make their choice freely.

DELTA NORTH MUST CHOOSE ITS FUTURE, NOT WORSHIP ITS PAST

The fundamental weakness of Chiazor’s article is its attempt to turn Okowa’s political history into a compelling argument for his political future without sufficiently confronting the record that history contains.

The article celebrates stature but does not adequately test performance. It emphasises hierarchy without establishing comparative merit. It invokes grassroots strength without demonstrating the extent of current electoral support. It predicts victory without presenting evidence that the electorate has already made that decision.

Above all, it asks Anioma to admire a familiar political figure when the more important task is to examine what each candidate can offer the constituency in the years ahead.

Delta North deserves better than a contest framed as the inevitable triumph of the established over the emerging.

It deserves a serious debate about the future of its roads, schools, farms, businesses, young people and communities. It deserves candidates who understand that political authority is borrowed from the people and must be justified through service.

Okowa has had his opportunity to govern Delta State. His record is now part of the public domain and should be assessed fairly, critically and without sentiment. His supporters are entitled to defend that record, but they cannot reasonably demand that it be accepted as proof of his automatic superiority in another election.

Ochei, meanwhile, must make the most of the opportunity before him. His candidacy should represent more than generational change in age or a contest between rival political establishments. It should offer a convincing alternative in the quality of representation, the openness of political participation and the delivery of measurable benefits to constituents.

That is the standard by which both men should be judged.

The people of Delta North are not obliged to reward political longevity simply because it is accompanied by impressive titles, familiar names and powerful networks. Neither are they obliged to reject experience merely because it belongs to an older generation.

They are entitled to choose the candidate they believe will serve them best.

And that brings us back to Chiazor’s categorical declaration that Okowa is better, “by far”.

Better is not a title conferred by a political commentator. Better is a conclusion that must be earned through evidence. It must be demonstrated in performance, justified by public service and tested against the available alternatives.

If Okowa is truly better, let his record make the case. If Ochei is the stronger candidate for the future, let his programme, competence and capacity demonstrate it.

But let no one mistake political seniority for an eternal mandate, or a formidable political structure for ownership of the people’s will.

Anioma is not the private estate of its political elders. Delta North is not a political inheritance. And the Senate is not a prize for the longest-serving occupant of the political arena.

In 2027, the choice should be between a record that must answer for the past and a candidacy that must demonstrate its promise for the future.

For Victor Ochei, this is the opportunity to prove that political renewal is not merely a slogan but a credible pathway to better representation.

For Okowa, it is the opportunity to demonstrate that his years in power have prepared him to offer something more than another chapter in a long political career.

And for Delta North, it is the opportunity to insist that the future of Anioma belongs not to any political godfather, party structure or celebrated personality, but to the people themselves.

The old order may have the louder megaphone. It does not own the final word.

• Chukwudi Abiandu, a public affairs commentator wrote  from Asaba.