Events in Oyo and Imo since after the elections, recommend the two states to some form of comparison. They have a lot in common in terms of shared characteristics especially since the new governors mounted the saddle of leadership. But they also have their distinctiveness.
These will come handy in understanding the nature and character of current dispute between governors Seyi Makinde; his predecessor Abiola Ajimobi on the one hand, Emeka Ihedioha and Rochas Okorocha on the other. One significant thing though, is the similarity they share as the two states in the southern part of the country the ruling party, the All Progressives Congress APC lost to the opposition Peoples Democratic Party PDP in the last governorship elections.
Both states share this similarity. And events since the swearing-in of the two governors seem also to be following the same pattern. But there are sharp departures also. Why are events in the two states seemingly following the same predictable pattern? Is there anything in the style of governance of the two states or the personalities of their former helmsmen that predispose them to the altercations and rancour they have been embroiled in since the change of leadership? Or can it be said as Okorocha has alleged that his current predicament is motivated by witch-hunt or vendetta because he is of the APC stock even when he is still on suspension by that party?
To resolve these posers, it is vital to identify the issues in contention. What are they? Before we go into them, it is apposite to point out that Oyo and Imo states are by no means the only states in the country where the opposition wrestled power from the ruling party. Neither was such change of baton only to the advantage of the opposition as the ruling party equally benefited from it. So looking at the recriminations between the two governors and their predecessors from this prism could obfuscate the salient and more serious issues of governance that are at the root of the matter.
Now the issues! Both governors had complained of arbitrary actions and looting of government property in the last days of their respective regimes. We shall look at specific cases of alleged infractions and how the new governors went about them.
The direction of Makinde’s line of action was set when he declared, “all transactions either contractual or in terms of appointments and promotions between March 11, and May 28, 2019 would be given closer scrutiny particularly because of the obvious mischief that had been introduced into governance within the period”. The period under review falls within the time a new governor had already been declared following the outcome of the last elections.
In specific terms, there were allegations of last minute promotions and appointments into the states civil service. There was the hurried elevation of about 15 permanent secretaries with scant regard to extant regulations; allegations of looting of government property especially vehicles by officials of Ajimobi’s regime. There were issues also with a plethora of last minute spending and refusal by the Ajimobi regime to cooperate with the transition committee set up by his successor. These were viewed as deliberate attempts to strew thorns on the path to the effective take off of the new regime.
How did the governor go about tackling them? He did not waste time in reversing some of these promotions including the appointment of permanent secretaries on the eve of the departure of the last regime. Makinde also empanelled a committee on the recovery of assets and properties illegally taken away by officials of the previous government.
This saw the governor and his predecessor in a diatribe on the propriety of the claims that government properties and cars were looted without regard to extant regulations. Ajimobi had described the allegation as a minor issue claiming that his aides paid for the vehicles they took away in keeping with subsisting understanding. But Makinde countered that they are concerned with only official vehicles carted away without legal instruments.
The government said most of the vehicles carted away illegally are new and in good working conditions. And they had no issue with vehicles boarded and paid for by officials of the last government. The government has therefore vowed to retrieve all such vehicles and properties. There are also issues bordering on poorly executed contracts and abandoned road projects. These are the issues in contention and have more to do with probity and accountability in public offices.
And what do we find in Imo State? Okorocha and his aides were not only accused of mindless looting of sundry government property but the clinical manner it was executed was legendary. Overnight, every household item in the government house quickly developed wings and fled as if an army of occupation had just evacuated. Government properties in some other establishments especially conference centres suffered the same fate.
Okorocha also initiated actions in several fronts in his last days in office to constrain the in-coming government. It was a bazaar of promotions and illegal employments as cronies, relations and accomplishes were given accelerated promotions with some of the letters of appointment back-dated. The former governor was to emerge one afternoon to announce the establishment of six new universities, four polytechnics and two colleges of education on the eve of his departure. Not done, he also proceeded to announce appointments into the commanding heights of those institutions.
Boards of statutory bodies, agencies and departments were also curiously constituted on the eve of his exit even when he showed strong aversion to these when he held way. When you pair these with his refusal to cooperate with the transition committee set up by his predecessor, what you find is a deliberate attempt to lay landmines against the effective take-off of the new regime. The reasons Okorocha went into frenzy when he realized he was living on borrowed time are not hard to fathom. For a man that had run the government as family estate courting the unenviable record of publicly showing strong aversion to due process, it was not surprising that he saw any attempt to hold him accountable for his actions as an act of vendetta and witch-hunting.
Besides, his scant regard for due process, gave rise to indiscriminate award of contracts such that the Council for the Registration of Engineering Practice in Nigeria COREN warned that bridges being constructed by Okorocha were “accidents waiting to happen as they had no engineering designs”. Before then, it had become an open fact the roads constructed by that government had earned the sobriquet ‘China roads’- a mark of sub-standard execution.
Ihedioha like Makinde set up a taskforce to retrieve all stolen government vehicles and properties. He also commissioned integrity tests on those bridges and flyovers suspected to be death traps. Their findings have been quite revealing of the mindless looting and sub-standard projects that hallmarked that regime. The governor also set up a high-powered committee on the six phoney universities and other tertiary institutions. A committee is to investigate the funds of the 27 local governments in the last eight years even as a judicial commission of inquiry into land matters from 2006 to 2019 has been empanelled. Ihedioha also reversed some of the illegal appointments and promotions done in the last days of the Okorocha regime.
All these have not gone down well with Okorocha and he has bandied allegations of attempts to discredit him. Of recent, he alleged the measures were against the APC and President Buhari just to curry sympathy and cover up the mess he left behind. But the same man had before now alleged that the APC was conniving with the EFCC to arrest him when he leaves office. He had even gone to court to stop such arrest. And since he left office, many properties traceable to him and his family have been sealed by the EFCC.
Okorocha has serious issues with Imo people. He has issues with the EFCC; he is haunted by his scant regard for due process and rule of law. He is being called upon to justify his actions. He must rise to that challenge, take his destiny in hands and desist from blaming phantom enemies for self-inflicted injury. His fate is not different from those of his former colleagues who saw governance as family estate.