The article by Tony Eke, titled, “Apartheid and Greed: Aniocha Treats Oshimili as Political Inferior,” is not only misleading in its assumptions but fundamentally flawed in its conclusions. It attempts to substitute sentiment, division, and emotional rhetoric for what should be the cornerstone of democratic representation; merit, performance, competence, and proven capacity.
At the heart of the argument lies a dangerous oversimplification: that zoning and rotation, rather than competence and effectiveness, should determine who represents the people of Aniocha/Oshimili Federal Constituency in the House of Representatives. This line of thinking undermines the very essence of democracy, which prioritizes the will of the people expressed through their confidence in capable leadership, not location, area of origin or lip service.
Representation is not a ceremonial rotation of offices; it is a serious responsibility that demands experience, legislative capacity, national relevance, and a demonstrable track record of delivering value. The people of Aniocha North, Aniocha South, Oshimili North, and Oshimili South are not divided by competence, they are united by a shared expectation of quality representation. Any attempt to reduce this expectation to mere zoning arrangements is both reductive and counterproductive.
Using Rt. Hon.Ndudi Elumelu as a case study clearly illustrates why merit must prevail. His tenure in the House of Representatives, including his role as Minority Leader, was not an accident of geography but a product of legislative experience, political maturity, and national influence. Ranking within the National Assembly is not arbitrarily assigned; it is earned through years of effective participation, strategic leadership, and the ability to influence policy at the highest levels. These are not qualities that can be rotated; they are built over time.
Elumelu’s record reflects sustained engagement with his constituency, facilitation of developmental projects, and a strong voice in national discourse. Whether one supports his continued candidacy or not, it is intellectually dishonest to dismiss such credentials in favor of a rigid zoning formula that ignores performance altogether. Leadership is not an experiment; it requires tested hands.
Furthermore, the suggestion that any axis has been “oppressed” or treated as “inferior” is not only exaggerated but deeply irresponsible. Words like “Apartheid,” “Greed,” and “Inferior” are inflammatory, historically loaded, and wholly inappropriate in describing the relationship between the Aniocha and Oshimili people. These communities share deep cultural, historical, and familial ties. To introduce such divisive language is to deliberately sow discord where none should exist.
It must also be stated clearly: the decision on who represents the people of Aniocha/Oshimili Federal Constituency rests solely with the people themselves, not external commentators. While public discourse is welcome in a democracy, it becomes problematic when individuals who are not direct stakeholders attempt to impose narratives that could destabilize unity. The people of this constituency are politically aware and capable of making informed choices based on their collective interests.
The claim that zoning automatically guarantees fairness is also questionable. True fairness lies in equal opportunity, not forced outcomes. Every qualified individual, regardless of origin within the constituency, should be free to present themselves before the electorate. The voters, in turn, should assess candidates based on competence, integrity, experience, and vision, not merely on where they come from.
It is also important to emphasize that a representative in the House of Representatives does not serve a clan, village, or axis, they serve the entire constituency. The mandate is holistic, not sectional. Effective representation requires someone who understands the diverse needs of all four local government areas and possesses the capacity to advocate for them collectively at the national level.
The attempt to frame the political landscape of Aniocha/Oshimili as one of domination and exclusion is therefore not only inaccurate but potentially harmful. It risks creating unnecessary tension and distracting from the real issues; development, governance, and effective representation.
In conclusion, the future of representation in Aniocha/Oshimili Federal Constituency must not be anchored on emotional appeals or divisive rhetoric. It must be built on merit, performance, experience, and proven leadership. The electorate must remain focused on what truly matters: who has the capacity to deliver, to lead, and to represent effectively at the national stage.
Anything less would be a disservice to the people and a betrayal of democratic principles.
C.W. Ugbolue.
