BETWEEN SCRUTINY AND SLANDER: WHY ACCOUNTABILITY QUESTIONS IN ABIA MUST REST ON EVIDENCE—AND WHY GOVERNOR OTTI’S RECORD STANDS
Democracy thrives on scrutiny, but it survives on evidence. In Abia State today, the loudest accusations against Governor Alex Otti often substitute insinuation for proof, and rhetoric for records. That is not accountability; it is slander by repetition. Genuine oversight requires facts—budgets, audits, timelines, and project sites that can be visited, verified, and evaluated. By that standard, the Otti administration’s record deserves a fair hearing grounded in public data, not conjecture.
Nigeria’s accountability architecture is explicit. The 1999 Constitution, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, and procurement rules place transparency above sentiment. The Bureau of Public Procurement has consistently warned that public debate must be anchored in due process and value-for-money tests, not political noise (BPP guidelines: https://www.bpp.gov.ng). That principle cuts both ways: critics should present verifiable counter-evidence, and governments should publish traceable proof. On this score, Abia under Otti has moved forward, not backward.
Consider fiscal disclosure. Abia now publishes budgets and performance summaries, aligning with open-budget practices encouraged by BudgIT, which notes that transparency improves when allocations can be traced to project sites and milestones (BudgIT: https://yourbudgit.com). FAAC inflows to states rose nationally after fuel subsidy reforms—a macro fact documented by Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/nigerias-states-reap-windfall-after-fuel-subsidy-cut-2023-10-05/). The relevant question is what states do with the inflows. In Abia, citizens can point to active road corridors, health facilities, power injections, and education upgrades with identifiable locations—evidence that can be inspected on the ground.
Health outcomes offer one clear data point. Abia’s performance in national primary healthcare benchmarking has been publicly recognised, reflecting sustained budgetary prioritisation and system reforms consistent with global best practice (World Bank Nigeria health portfolio: https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/nigeria). These gains are not press releases; they are measured against indicators and verified by partners. Health facilities and upgrades are project sites, not abstractions.
On industry, the Star Paper Mill discussion has been miscast. AMCON’s mandate allows restructuring and transfer of distressed assets in the national interest (AMCON Act overview: https://amcon.com.ng). Abia’s approach—recovering a stranded asset, clarifying title, and preparing it for private operation—fits modern development economics that emphasise de-risking rather than permanent state operation. Comparable strategies are endorsed by the World Bank’s services-delivery and private-sector participation frameworks (https://www.worldbank.org). What matters next are disclosed valuations, timelines, and concession terms—steps the government has signalled and must continue to publish—so the public can judge outcomes at the project site level.
The charge that “projects do not exist” collapses under basic verification. Roads, power injections, transport terminals, and health upgrades have physical footprints. The Auditor-General’s guidance is unequivocal: verification relies on completion certificates, site inspections, and performance audits (Office of the Auditor-General: https://oaugf.ng). Where critics allege absence, the burden is to name the project site, the budget line, and the audit finding. Blanket claims without locations or documents do not meet the threshold of serious oversight.
Equally troubling is the weaponisation of identity to silence debate. Transparency International warns that selective outrage and online intimidation corrode governance more than disagreement itself (TI Nigeria: https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/nigeria). Accountability is not an ethnic offence; it is a civic duty. Under Otti, the appropriate response to criticism has increasingly been data—budgets, timelines, and sites—not censorship. That is how democracies mature.
Finally, development is judged by outcomes, not optics. The World Development Report reminds us that credibility grows when citizens can see services working where they live (https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr). Abia’s trajectory—clearer fiscal disclosure, measurable health gains, asset recovery for private-led revival, and visible project sites—aligns with that test. The administration should keep publishing audits and site-level dashboards. Critics should match claims with evidence.
In sum, defending Governor Otti’s record is not about shielding power; it is about insisting on standards. Facts over fury. Sites over slogans. Audits over abuse. On those terms, Abia’s case is stronger than its detractors admit—and improving where it matters most: on the ground.
AProf Chukwuemeka Ifegwu Eke
