Banner Online News

By Chukwudi Abiandu

Dr. Norbert Chiazor is a distinguished writer and an accomplished journalist whose command of language is beyond dispute. His essay, “Okowa, Nwoko, Ochei: The Die Is Cast,” is elegantly constructed and, as expected of him, richly embroidered with historical references, political metaphors and rhetorical flourishes. But beneath the elegance of the prose lies a proposition that deserves vigorous interrogation.

That proposition is that Senator Ifeanyi Okowa’s political history, experience, influence and network somehow make his return to the Senate on the platform of Delta North an almost natural political conclusion. It is not. The die is not cast.

And certainly, the mandate of the people of Anioma is not a political inheritance to be reclaimed simply because a former governor, former senator and former presidential running mate decides that he wants it back.

Chiazor is entitled to his choice. He says without equivocation: “Okowa is my candidate. My choice.”Fair enough. But personal preference, however passionately expressed, cannot be converted into the collective preference of the Anioma people. That is where the argument must end and the electorate must begin.

The question is not whether Okowa has held offices. It is what he did with them

Chiazor provides an impressive inventory of Okowa’s political journey: local government chairman, commissioner, Secretary to the State Government, senator and governor. But there is a fundamental problem with using the number and variety of offices occupied by a politician as evidence of his entitlement to another mandate.

Political longevity is not necessarily political effectiveness. Indeed, the more appropriate question is this: After all these years in positions of influence, what compelling reason should the people of Delta North have for returning Okowa to the Senate? This is not an attack on Okowa. It is the legitimate question of an electorate.

For years, Anioma people watched his political ascent with considerable interest. They watched him move from the grassroots to the State Executive Council, to the Delta State Government House, to the Senate and eventually to the governorship.

They watched him become the first governor of Delta State from Anioma. That achievement is historic and nobody can erase it. But history should not become mythology. And mythology should not become a substitute for accountability.

If Okowa’s eight years as governor constitute the strongest argument for his return to the Senate, then Anioma voters must be allowed to ask what those eight years delivered specifically to the ordinary people whose votes made him governor.

Where are the transformative internal roads across many Anioma communities?

What became of the expectations of young graduates who spent years searching for gainful employment? How many of the enterprising youths of Delta North found sustainable economic opportunities? What institutional structures were established to ensure that Anioma’s young people could create wealth rather than merely wait for government empowerment?

These are not questions that can be answered by describing a politician as a “matchless strategist”, “defining actor” or a man of “history, intelligence, experience, maturity, depth, capacity, humility, favour and people.” The people need results, not adjectives.

Ochei’s argument is precisely that leadership must understand the people

This is where Victor Ochei’s intervention deserves serious consideration. When Ochei says that Delta North deserves leadership that understands its people, feels their concerns and works tirelessly for their progress, he is not making an abstract political statement. He is defining a philosophy of representation. And it is precisely why many people continue to place confidence in him.

Ochei is not entering this conversation as a political novice. He spent 12 years in the Delta State House of Assembly and rose to become Speaker between 2011 and 2014. Whatever one’s political preference may be, that experience demonstrates that he understands legislation, parliamentary procedure, constituency politics and the machinery of government.

More importantly, it gives Anioma voters a basis upon which to evaluate him.

Ochei represents something different from the politics of perpetual recycling. He is younger. He is an engineer and a lawyer. He is enterprising, politically experienced and demonstrably ambitious. But ambition is not his problem. The real question is whether his ambition is directed toward public service. That is precisely what the electorate must determine. The politics of “he has influence” is not enough

Chiazor places considerable emphasis on Okowa’s national connections. Presidents, governors, senators, ministers and business leaders, he tells us, regard him.

Again, that may well be so. But there is a distinction between having powerful friends and converting political access into tangible benefits for one’s constituents.

A senator does not need to be the most connected man in Nigeria. He needs to be effective. He needs to speak when his people are threatened. He needs to negotiate when their interests are at stake. He needs to attract development.

He needs to understand legislation and use it to improve lives. He needs to represent the forgotten community as vigorously as he represents the politically influential.

The people of Delta North are not electing a social network. They are electing a senator. And this is where Ochei’s candidacy becomes significant.

His appeal is not simply that he is younger than Okowa. It is that he represents the possibility of a generational shift from politics built around established political networks to politics built around competence, enterprise and personal capacity.

Anioma does not need another political godfather

There is another uncomfortable conversation that must be had. Over the years, politics in Delta has increasingly been associated with patronage networks in which access to political opportunity can depend heavily on proximity to powerful political figures. Whether one calls it structure, influence, political family or godfatherism, the consequence is the same when ordinary citizens begin to believe that political opportunities are reserved for those who belong to an inner circle. That is not the Anioma political tradition we should be building.

Anioma is an enterprising people. Its sons and daughters have succeeded in business, the professions, academia, technology, medicine, law and industry without waiting for political godfathers to validate their worth. Why should politics be different?

Ochei’s emergence offers an opportunity to make a different argument: That a person can rise on the strength of ability, experience, enterprise and character. That political leadership should not be a closed shop. That young Anioma people should be encouraged to believe that they can aspire to public office because of what they can contribute, not because of whose political camp they belong to. That is a powerful message.

The Southern presidency question cannot simply be wished away

There is also a political episode that Anioma people have every right to remember.

As governor of Delta State, Okowa hosted the meeting of Southern governors in Asaba at which the governors collectively took a position favouring the emergence of Nigeria’s next president from the South.

That position became an important political statement in the national debate ahead of the 2023 election. Yet Okowa subsequently emerged as the running mate to Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party. The issue here is not whether Okowa was legally entitled to make that political choice. Of course he was. The issue is political consistency and the expectations created by collective political commitments.

For many people in Southern Nigeria, the Southern Governors’ position was understood as a political commitment to the principle of power rotation to the South. For many Anioma citizens, therefore, Okowa’s subsequent decision to run as Atiku’s running mate generated profound disappointment. They are entitled to ask: What happened to the principle for which the Southern Governors had spoken?Was the Asaba declaration merely a political convenience? Or was it a genuine principle that should have survived the pressure of presidential ambition? This is not an insignificant question in evaluating political leadership. Because leadership is tested not only when principles are convenient but when adherence to them carries a personal political cost.

And then came 2023

There is another claim now circulating in political conversations which deserves to be treated with caution but not ignored. It has been alleged that Okowa recently told some elderly people in village communities that he knew the PDP was going to lose the 2023 presidential election. If that claim is accurate, it raises an extraordinary question. If he knew the party was going to lose, why did he campaign as though victory was assured?

Why encourage citizens to invest their time, energy and resources in a campaign whose outcome he had supposedly already judged to be defeat? Where is the political strategy in knowingly leading people toward an outcome one already believes will fail? And if the statement is inaccurate, then Okowa should be given the opportunity to say so clearly. But if it is true, then it raises an even more serious question about the political judgment of a man now being presented as the strategist who should return to the Senate. Political sagacity is not merely knowing that defeat is coming. It is knowing what to do about it.

The daughter-in-the-Assembly issue is also legitimate political territory

There is another issue that cannot simply be dismissed as propaganda. The reported bid by Okowa’s daughter to return to the Delta State House of Assembly, while her father seeks a Senate seat, inevitably raises questions about political concentration within a single family. Again, this is not to suggest that she lacks the constitutional right to contest. She does. But democracy is not merely about what is legally permissible.

It is also about what citizens consider politically desirable.

The question Anioma voters may legitimately ask is: In an entire constituency, are there no other qualified young men and women capable of representing the people?

When a father seeks the Senate while his daughter seeks the State Assembly seat from the same political constituency, citizens are entitled to discuss the symbolism. Does it demonstrate confidence in the people? Or does it reinforce the perception that political opportunities are becoming concentrated within familiar political families? The voters, not political godfathers, must answer that question.

Okowa’s governorship should be judged by the people who lived through it

Chiazor says Okowa “provided social infrastructure across urban and rural communities” and created empowerment programmes for youths and artisans. That is his assessment. But an election is not a literary contest in which the more beautiful description wins. The people who lived through those eight years have their own memories. They remember the roads. They remember the schools. They remember hospitals. They remember employment opportunities, or the absence of them. They remember whether government was accessible. They remember who benefited and who was left behind. They remember whether their communities received the attention they deserved. And their memories are more important than political nostalgia.

Chiazor says posterity will judge Okowa.

Perhaps. But elections do not take place in posterity. They take place now. And the people who will vote in 2027 are alive now.

Ochei does not need to be presented as perfect

The temptation in political writing is to manufacture saints. That would be unnecessary in Ochei’s case. He does not need to be perfect. He needs to be credible. He needs to demonstrate capacity. He needs to present a coherent programme for Delta North. He needs to convince the electorate that he can transform their frustrations into legislative action. And, importantly, he needs to explain how his experience as Speaker can be translated into effective representation at the Senate. That is a much stronger argument than pretending that he has no shortcomings.

Ochei’s greatest political advantage may actually be that he represents renewal. He is not asking Anioma voters to return to a political past. He is asking them to consider the future.

The real contest is between political nostalgia and political renewal. This is where Chiazor’s “triumvirate” metaphor becomes less convincing. There may indeed be three prominent political personalities in the discussion.

But the electorate is not obliged to treat them as equal embodiments of Anioma’s political future.

Nwoko has his record. Okowa has his record. Ochei has his record. Let the people compare them. Let them compare legislative performance. Let them compare accessibility. Let them compare constituency engagement. Let them compare development. Let them compare character. Let them compare vision. Let them compare the quality of leadership they represent. And then let them vote. That is democracy.

The 2014 primary is history, not a perpetual political verdict. Chiazor devotes considerable space to the 2014 PDP governorship primary, reminding readers that Okowa defeated Ochei and several other aspirants. Indeed, Okowa won. Nobody disputes it. But that was 2014. Politics is not a permanent replay of old elections. A victory in a 2014 governorship primary cannot automatically determine the result of a 2027 Senate election. If it could, there would be no need for elections.

Ochei was a different politician then. Okowa was a different politician then.

Delta North was different. Nigeria was different. The electorate was different.

The issues are different. Thirteen years is a very long time in politics. The relevant question in 2027 is not who defeated whom in 2014. It is who the people believe can best represent them in 2027.

“The die is cast”? No. The voters hold the dice. This is perhaps the most important point. Chiazor concludes that the die is cast. With respect, it is not. The die belongs to the voters. The ballot belongs to the voters. The mandate belongs to the voters. And no politician, however accomplished, experienced, connected or celebrated, can permanently appropriate the political judgment of the people.

Anioma citizens have watched Okowa’s political journey from the local government to the Government House. They watched him become senator. They watched him become governor. They watched him become vice-presidential candidate. They have therefore accumulated enough political experience themselves to judge politicians. They do not need anybody to tell them what they saw. And if after all those years they decide that it is time for another generation, another philosophy and another style of representation, that decision must be respected.

Anioma owes nobody a political favour.

This is why the attempt to frame Okowa’s return as some inevitable historical restoration must be resisted. The fact that Okowa became the first Anioma governor is worthy of recognition. But that achievement does not create a lifetime entitlement to the Anioma Senate seat. The people owe him gratitude for whatever they believe he achieved. They do not owe him their votes.

Gratitude is not a substitute for performance. Nor is experience a substitute for results. Nor is political connection a substitute for representation.

Nor is nostalgia a substitute for a compelling future.

Ochei and the politics of possibility

Victor Ochei’s strongest argument, therefore, is not that Okowa has no achievements. It is that Anioma can do better by looking forward rather than backward. An engineer. A lawyer. A former Speaker. A 12-year legislator. An experienced political operator. A younger politician with the energy and enterprise to pursue a new direction. That is the Ochei proposition.

It is not the proposition that he is entitled to the seat. It is the proposition that he deserves to be heard. And after listening to him, Anioma voters should make their own decision. The political culture that tells citizens that they must align with a godfather to survive must give way to one that tells citizens that their competence, character and enterprise can take them to the top. That is the Anioma spirit. That is the politics of self-belief. That is the politics Ochei represents.

Once beaten, twice shy

The Anioma electorate has learned from history. It has watched political promises. It has watched alliances. It has watched political calculations. It has watched principles bend under the weight of ambition. It has watched politicians occupy one office after another. Now it is entitled to ask a simple question: What next? Not what was achieved in 2015. Not what happened in 2014. Not how many governors or presidents a politician knows.

Not how beautifully a political biography can be written. But: What can this candidate do for us now?

That is the question that should determine the 2027 Senate election. And if the answer, in the considered judgment of the people, is Victor Ochei, no amount of political nostalgia can stop them. So, with due respect to Dr. Norbert Chiazor: No, the die is not cast. It is not the law of Moses that Okowa must return to the Senate. It is not an Anioma political commandment. It is not a hereditary entitlement. It is an election. And in an election, the people have the final word.

If the people of Delta North decide that they have seen enough of the old political order and want a younger, more enterprising, more independent and forward-looking representative, their decision is neither rebellion nor ingratitude. It is democracy.

And perhaps the most important political message of 2027 is this: Anioma is not looking for a political past to celebrate. Anioma is looking for a future to build.

The die, therefore, is not cast.

The people are still holding it.