CHANGE MUST BEGIN WITH THE TRUTH, NOT WITH DON NORMAN OBINNA’S RECYCLED LEGAL FICTION
Don Norman Obinna says he has “republished on public demand” because everything he predicted has allegedly come to pass.
Wonderful! 😂😂😂
When an old article is dusted, perfumed and republished as prophecy, one expects at least one fulfilled prediction, one judicial pronouncement, one constitutional violation established by a court, or one hard fact that survived three years of scrutiny.
Instead, what has been republished is the same pot of grammatical pepper soup: plenty of vocabulary, little legal substance and absolutely no constitutional meat. 😂
The title says:
“Change Must Begin With Otti.”
Agreed.
But change must also begin with writers who quote the Constitution without understanding it.
Change must begin with commentators who distinguish between political dislike and constitutional illegality.
Change must begin with those who know that a thesaurus is not a law report, verbosity is not jurisprudence, and prediction is not evidence. 😂😂😂
The central allegation in the article is that Governor Alex Otti violated the Constitution by allegedly installing a first-term Labour Party member as Speaker of the Abia State House of Assembly, even though the Labour Party did not initially possess the majority.
That argument is legally anaemic.
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SAY THE SPEAKER MUST COME FROM THE MAJORITY PARTY.
Let us remove the smoke, grammar and theatrical indignation.
Section 92 of the 1999 Constitution provides that there shall be a Speaker and Deputy Speaker of a State House of Assembly, and that they shall be elected by the members of that House from among themselves.
That is the constitutional test.
Was Emmanuel Emeruwa a duly elected member of the House?
Yes.
Was he elected by members of the House?
Yes.
Was he constitutionally prohibited from becoming Speaker because he was a first-timer?
No.
Was the office constitutionally reserved for the PDP because it had more members?
No.
Case closed. 😂
The Constitution does not say:
“The oldest lawmaker shall be Speaker.”
It does not say:
“A first-term legislator shall not be Speaker.”
It does not say:
“The party with the highest number of seats must produce the Speaker.”
It says the members shall elect one of themselves.
Therefore, to describe the emergence of a first-term legislator as being “against the edicts of the Constitution” is not constitutional interpretation. It is constitutional invention.
Don Norman simply wrote his personal preference into the Constitution and then accused Governor Otti of violating the sentence Don Norman manufactured. 😂😂😂
That is not law.
That is political fan fiction wearing a wig and gown.
THE MISUSE OF SECTION 311
The writer then carries Section 311 of the Constitution on his head like a masquerade and begins dancing around the village square.
Section 311 deals with the continuing application of Standing Orders pending the exercise of the legislative powers conferred by the Constitution. It does not state that a first-term member cannot become Speaker. It does not award the speakership to the majority party. It does not appoint the PDP caucus as hereditary owners of the legislative throne.
The House rule he quoted merely describes the Clerk’s role during the proclamation and commencement of the first sitting.
It does not say:
“The Clerk shall crown the nominee of the majority party.”
It does not say:
“The governor’s party is forbidden from presenting a candidate.”
It does not say:
“Members may not vote across party lines.”
So where exactly is the constitutional breach?
Inside Don Norman’s imagination? 😂
Quoting a genuine legal provision and attaching an unrelated conclusion to it is an old rhetorical trick.
For example, the Constitution guarantees freedom of movement. That does not mean someone can walk into the Central Bank vault.
The Constitution recognises Standing Orders. That does not mean Don Norman can invent a standing order that the majority party must automatically produce the Speaker.
Law operates through words, procedures and evidence—not emotional embroidery.
THE GOVERNOR DID NOT CAST THE LEGISLATORS’ VOTES
There is another logical crater in the article.
The writer alleges that Governor Otti “predisposed” lawmakers to elect his preferred candidates.
“Predisposed” is doing Olympic weightlifting here. 😂😂😂
Where is the evidence?
Was there an audio recording of Governor Otti commanding legislators?
Was there a written directive?
Was any lawmaker physically prevented from voting?
Was the election annulled by a competent court?
Did a court declare the Speaker’s election unconstitutional?
Was the ballot conducted inside the Governor’s bedroom?
Nothing.
We are merely expected to accept that because the outcome displeased the writer, the Governor must have illegally engineered it.
That is not logic. It is suspicion promoted to evidence.
In a parliamentary election, political negotiation is not automatically illegality. Coalition-building is not automatically dictatorship. Persuasion is not automatically constitutional subversion. Members of different parties may vote for the same candidate.
That is called politics.
Apparently, when politicians negotiate against Governor Otti, it is democracy.
But when legislators cooperate with Governor Otti’s political bloc, Don Norman suddenly sees Adolf Hitler hiding behind the curtains. 😂😂😂
What a wonderfully selective political philosophy!
MAJORITY DOES NOT MEAN OWNERSHIP
The writer’s entire case rests on the primitive assumption that the party with the numerical majority owns the legislature and must therefore produce its presiding officers.
That assumption is both politically lazy and historically ignorant.
Across democratic legislatures, presiding officers emerge through voting, bargaining, alliances, defections, consensus, rebellion and cross-party coalitions.
A majority party may normally produce the Speaker, but “normally” is not the same as “constitutionally compulsory.”
Politics is not a chieftaincy stool inherited by the largest family.
A legislative majority must organise itself, nominate a candidate, build consensus and win the vote.
When a supposedly dominant party cannot organise its members sufficiently to elect its preferred candidate, it should blame its political arithmetic—not the Constitution.
You cannot arrive at the Assembly divided, disorganised and strategically asleep, lose an internal vote, and then wake up shouting:
“Rule of law! Dictatorship! Annexation!”
No, sir. 😂
Sometimes, defeat is simply defeat.
PHILOSOPHY WITHOUT CONSISTENCY IS PROPAGANDA
The writer invokes constitutionalism, noblesse oblige, democratic principles and the rule of law.
Beautiful phrases.
But philosophy is not ornamental grammar. Philosophy demands consistency.
If legislators are representatives with independent judgment, then their votes must be respected—even when their choices offend a columnist.
If lawmakers are permitted to elect their leaders, then the writer cannot demand freedom for them and simultaneously insist that they must vote only according to party arithmetic.
You cannot preach legislative independence and then dictate the only “acceptable” election result.
That contradiction destroys the entire essay.
The writer says the House must be independent, yet he appears offended that some lawmakers may have exercised independence from their party leadership.
So which one does he want?
Independent legislators—or obedient party robots?
Philosophically, freedom is meaningful only when people are permitted to make choices we dislike.
A vote is not democratic only when Don Norman approves the result. 😂
THE MORAL QUESTION
Morally, criticism of government is necessary. Governor Otti is not above scrutiny, and no serious supporter should place him above accountability.
But moral criticism must begin with intellectual honesty.
It is morally improper to accuse a public officer of violating the Constitution when the cited provision contains no such prohibition.
It is morally reckless to transform political inference into established fact.
It is morally weak to say, “Otti installed the Speaker,” without producing evidence of coercion, bribery, threats or an unlawful directive.
It is morally unserious to repackage an unproven allegation as a fulfilled prophecy merely because the article has been republished three years later.
Repetition is not verification.
Age is not accuracy.
A stale allegation does not become vintage truth. 😂😂😂
THE HISTORICAL AMNESIA
The writer contrasts the Otti administration with the old PDP order and pretends that harmonious executive-legislative relations suddenly became a crime on 29 May 2023.
How convenient!
For decades in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic, governors have exercised enormous political influence over the composition and leadership of state assemblies. In many states, ruling parties with overwhelming majorities turned legislatures into mere extensions of government houses.
Where were these thunderous sermons then?
Under previous administrations, Abia’s House of Assembly did not exactly resemble the Roman Senate resisting Caesar. Yet many of today’s emergency constitutionalists discovered Montesquieu only after Alex Otti entered Government House. 😂
Apparently, separation of powers was on annual leave for twenty-four years and resumed duty precisely when Labour Party won Abia.
What miraculous timing!
The moral lesson of history is not that every cordial relationship between the executive and legislature is tyranny. The real question is whether the Assembly continues to legislate, scrutinise, debate, appropriate funds and represent its constituencies.
Cooperation is not subservience.
Conflict is not automatically independence.
A legislature does not prove its autonomy by fighting the governor every morning before breakfast.
Sometimes mature institutions disagree privately, negotiate responsibly and cooperate publicly for development.
Only political dramatists believe democracy is genuine when chairs are flying. 😂😂😂
THE “JOURNALISTS PRAISED IKPEAZU” DIVERSION
Then comes the emotional detour.
The writer complains that journalists criticised former Governor Okezie Ikpeazu too late and are now defending Otti.
This is not evidence that Otti violated the Constitution.
It is a completely different argument smuggled into the article because the original legal case had collapsed.
Whether some journalists praised Ikpeazu excessively does not make Emeruwa’s election unconstitutional.
Whether journalists now support Otti does not amend Section 92.
Whether media practitioners are sycophants does not give the majority party an automatic constitutional right to the speakership.
This is classic diversion:
When the legal argument is weak, attack journalists.
When the constitutional claim fails, invoke Ikpeazu.
When evidence is absent, announce prophecy.
When logic disappears, advertise a book. 😂😂😂
“EVERYTHING I PREDICTED HAS HAPPENED” — REALLY?
This is the loudest comedy in the republic.
What precisely happened?
Did a court nullify the election of the Speaker?
No evidence has been presented.
Did the Constitution suddenly acquire a clause barring first-term members from becoming Speaker?
No.
Did the majority party receive a constitutional certificate of ownership over the speakership?
No.
Did the Assembly cease to exist?
No.
Has the writer shown that Governor Otti issued illegal commands to the legislature?
No.
So what exactly was predicted?
That the executive and legislature would maintain a working relationship?
Congratulations, Nostradamus of Ibeku! 😂😂😂
Predicting that two arms of a state government will cooperate is like predicting that December will come after November.
The question is not whether they cooperate. The question is whether the legislature has abandoned its constitutional functions.
That case was neither proved in the old article nor proved by its republication.
ACCOUNTABILITY MUST BE BASED ON FACTS
Governor Alex Otti should be challenged on budgets, procurement, project costs, revenue, debt, education, healthcare, pensions, security, local government administration and measurable outcomes.
Those are serious accountability questions.
But criticism loses force when it is built on a false constitutional premise.
You cannot strengthen democracy by misquoting democracy’s foundational document.
You cannot defend the rule of law by inventing rules that the law never made.
You cannot accuse another person of arbitrariness while arbitrarily rewriting the Constitution yourself.
And you certainly cannot proclaim yourself prophetic merely because you have pressed the “repost” button. 😂😂😂
THE VERDICT
The article is not a constitutional exposé.
It is a political opinion padded with oversized vocabulary.
Its legal claim fails.
Its logic contradicts itself.
Its moral indignation is selective.
Its historical memory is conveniently incomplete.
Its central allegation is unsupported by evidence.
Its prophecy is self-certified.
Its conclusion was written before its argument began. 😂
Don Norman Obinna is entitled to criticise Governor Alex Otti.
But he is not entitled to manufacture constitutional provisions.
He is entitled to dislike the Speaker.
But dislike is not illegality.
He is entitled to prefer a PDP Speaker.
But preference is not law.
He is entitled to republish his article.
But republication does not convert error into prophecy.
CHANGE MUST INDEED BEGIN.
Let it begin with facts.
Let it begin with intellectual honesty.
Let it begin with evidence.
Let it begin with correct constitutional interpretation.
And, most urgently, let it begin with Don Norman Obinna removing his political wishes from the Constitution and reading what the Constitution actually says. 😂😂😂
Governor Alex Otti, OFR, should be held accountable—fairly, firmly and factually.
But this recycled article has not held him accountable.
It has merely held the English dictionary hostage.
