By Julius Nsikak
There is a thin line between political loyalty and institutional abuse. What is currently unfolding in Akwa Ibom State suggests that line is not just being blurred, it is being recklessly erased.
When whispers first emerged that all Local Government Chairmen might be retained for a second term at the discretion of Umo Bassey Eno, it sounded like the usual marketplace gossip that trails Nigerian politics. It was easy to dismiss. It is no longer easy to ignore.
Now comes an even more troubling revelation: that these same chairmen are reportedly mobilising resources to purchase the governor’s nomination form ahead of the next election cycle. This is not just politically curious, it is fundamentally disturbing.
At a time when the average citizen is suffocating under economic pressure, such a move reeks of elite insensitivity.
Local governments, which should serve as the closest tier of governance to the people, are instead becoming instruments of political patronage. The implication is stark: governance is taking a back seat to allegiance.
Let’s be clear, this is not an act of generosity. It is not even loyalty in its purest sense. It is a calculated performance, a public display of submission designed to curry favour and secure political survival.
And in that performance lies the real tragedy: the people have been written out of the script.
The critical question remains unanswered, whose funds are being deployed for this political theatre? In a system where public finance accountability is already fragile, the optics alone are damaging.
Communities battling poor infrastructure, unemployment, and rising living costs are left to wonder whether their resources are being diverted to bankroll political ambitions.
Supporters may attempt to spin this as unity. They may argue that it reflects confidence in leadership.
But that argument collapses under scrutiny. True unity is built on shared progress, not orchestrated displays of loyalty. Confidence in leadership should manifest in improved living standards, not in fundraising for political continuity.
What this episode reveals is a widening disconnect between those in power and the people they govern. It exposes a political culture that increasingly prioritises personal allegiance over public responsibility. And perhaps most dangerously, it normalises a system where public office is leveraged for political indebtedness rather than public service.
This is not governance. It is excess masquerading as strategy.
If this pattern is allowed to persist, it sets a dangerous precedent, one where democratic institutions are weakened, accountability is diluted, and governance becomes secondary to political preservation.
What we are witnessing is not merely a political misstep. It is a distortion of democratic values.
And if nothing changes, it risks becoming the new normal.
That, by every standard, is unacceptable.
