YOU CAN BE A BANKER AND A CRITIC — THE TWO ROLES ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
There is a serious flaw in the argument that because Alex Otti worked in banking during previous Abia administrations, he was somehow personally responsible for detecting, stopping and publicly announcing every alleged misuse of Abia State funds.
That is not how banking works.
A bank processes transactions on the mandate of its customer, subject to banking law, regulatory controls, anti-money-laundering requirements and other compliance obligations. Where a transaction raises legally defined suspicions, the obligation of the bank is ordinarily to follow the prescribed compliance process and report to the appropriate authorities — not for the Managing Director to climb onto a political podium and start announcing confidential transactions to the public.
Indeed, the Nigerian AML framework specifically requires financial institutions to identify and report suspicious transactions to the relevant financial-intelligence authority. It also imposes confidentiality obligations around such reports.
So the statement, “Otti did not publicly raise an alarm, therefore he was in bed with them,” does not prove anything.
Where is the evidence?
Which particular Abia State transaction passed through a bank under Otti’s control?
What was the transaction?
What made it fraudulent?
Who authorised it?
What information was available to the bank at the time?
Did the bank file any regulatory report?
Was Otti personally involved in approving it?
Without answers to those questions, “he was their banker, therefore he participated in their wrongdoing” is an allegation built on association rather than evidence.
There is another factual problem.
Alex Otti became Group Managing Director/CEO of Diamond Bank in March 2011 and left the position in October 2014. Therefore, portraying him simply as “the state banker” throughout roughly 16 years of Abia governance creates an impression that requires much more evidence than has been supplied. His documented banking career covered several institutions and responsibilities before Diamond Bank.
And there is an even bigger contradiction in the argument.
If a banker discovers a suspicious transaction, the professional response is not necessarily to hold a press conference.
Banks have compliance departments. They have AML officers. They investigate red flags and make Suspicious Transaction Reports to the appropriate institution. The CBN framework expressly provides for confidential internal review and reporting of suspicious transactions and warns against “tipping off” persons under suspicion.
Therefore, asking, “Why didn’t Otti tell Abians what he saw?” may actually demand behaviour inconsistent with the confidentiality expected of a banker.
Now, none of this means Alex Otti is above criticism.
He is Governor today.
Question his budgets.
Question his contracts.
Question procurement.
Question expenditure.
Question debt.
Question projects.
Question promises against outcomes.
Demand transparency.
Demand accountability.
That is legitimate democratic scrutiny.
But accountability must itself be accountable to facts.
You cannot move from:
“He worked in banking while these governments existed”
to:
“He knew they were stealing”
to:
“He processed fraudulent payments”
to:
“He was in bed with them.”
Those are four completely different propositions, and each requires evidence.
Consistency of character is important.
CONSISTENCY OF EVIDENCE IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT.
If we condemn people because of mere proximity to politicians, then lawyers who represented governments become accomplices, doctors who treated governors become accomplices, contractors who supplied government become accomplices, and banks that maintained government accounts become accomplices.
That is not accountability.
That is guilt by association.
Let us criticise Otti where there is evidence.
Let us praise him where there are results.
And where allegations are made, let the person making them produce the transaction, the document, the instruction, the account, the regulatory breach and the evidence linking Otti personally to it.
Public debate becomes stronger when we replace insinuation with proof.
YOU CAN BE A BANKER AND LATER BECOME A CRITIC.
WHAT YOU CANNOT DO IS TURN SUSPICION INTO GUILT WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
