By Elvis Nwaneri
I have read with considerable interest Kizito Duru’s piece on the zoning question in Okigwe North Federal Constituency. I must first commend the quality of the work. It is well written, carefully arranged and presented with the confidence of someone who knows his subject. But good writing does not make every argument correct. Beyond the fine prose, I have serious reservations about some of the events he presented and the conclusions he drew from them. Some important facts were left out, while others were presented in a way that seems to favour a particular position. Like Kizito, I have no political affiliation in this matter. Like him, I am also from Isiala Mbano. But our place of origin should not become a reason to twist history in our favour. If we cannot tell ourselves the truth, we cannot expect others to accept our version of it.
Kizito’s account of representation in Okigwe North since 1999 is correct. Onuimo had its turn from 1999 to 2007. Okigwe followed from 2007 to 2015. Isiala Mbano took its turn in 2015 through Hon. Obinna Owubuariri. There is no dispute about this. Where I disagree with him is his attempt to suggest that Onuimo is now paying the price for the political decision it made in 2020 when it voted against Owubuariri. The figures simply do not support that argument. Princess Miriam Onuoha did not defeat Owubuariri because of Onuimo. She defeated him in all three Local Government Areas. In Okigwe, APC scored 6,776 votes against PDP’s 3,321. In Onuimo, APC scored 5,758 against PDP’s 3,026. In Isiala Mbano, APC scored 11,156 against PDP’s 3,363. The final figures were APC 23,690 and PDP 9,710.
So, why should Onuimo alone carry the blame for Owubuariri’s defeat? Onuimo gave Owubuariri 3,026 votes. That was about 90 per cent of the 3,363 votes he received from his own Isiala Mbano. Yet Isiala Mbano gave Princess Onuoha her largest margin of victory, 7,793 votes. Even if every single PDP vote in Onuimo had gone to Owubuariri, he still would not have won the election. The election was lost across the three LGAs. It was not an Onuimo-made defeat. This is where Kizito’s argument becomes difficult to understand. He knows these figures. He knows what the result says. Yet he presents the matter as though Onuimo alone made the decision that brought Princess Onuoha into office. That is not a fair reading of history.
There is also an important part of our political history that Kizito left out. Princess Onuoha succeeding Owubuariri in 2020 was not the first time two people shared the period allotted to an LGA. When it was Onuimo’s turn between 1999 and 2007, Hon. Morris Ibekwe served before Barr. Mike Ohia took over. Mike Ohia could have sought another tenure. He did not. He respected the spirit of the arrangement and allowed the seat to move to Okigwe. If two people could share an LGA’s eight-year period when it was Onuimo’s turn, why should the same arrangement suddenly become unacceptable because it happened during Isiala Mbano’s turn? Kizito also wants Onuimo to carry the burden of Princess Onuoha’s decision to seek another term after promising to serve for only one tenure. But that was Princess Onuoha’s decision. It was not Onuimo’s. A political promise made by one candidate cannot become a permanent punishment for an entire LGA simply because some people supported that candidate at an election.
But perhaps the most important omission in Kizito’s piece is what happened in 2023. He carefully explained how Onuimo voted in 2020 but said little about how the same Onuimo voted when Princess Onuoha returned to the ballot in 2023. That omission matters. Princess Onuoha was rejected in Onuimo in 2023. She came behind Uche Lebechi, Chikwem Onuoha and Obinna Owubuariri in the House of Representatives election in the LGA. The candidate who received the highest number of votes in Onuimo was Uche Lebechi, a son of Onuimo, who contested under the SDP. Interestingly, Chikwem Onuoha, Obinna Owubuariri and Princess Miriam Onuoha were all from Isiala Mbano. Yet Onuimo voters chose their own son over the three prominent candidates from Isiala Mbano. What does that tell us? It tells us that Onuimo did not abandon zoning in 2023. It resisted what it considered an attempt by Isiala Mbano to retain the seat. Princess Onuoha eventually won because she secured enough votes from Okigwe and Isiala Mbano. Onuimo did not give her that victory.
This is why I find the argument that Onuimo had its cake and ate it difficult to sustain. Onuimo made its choice in 2020, just as the other LGAs made theirs. When the question of Princess Onuoha’s return arose in 2023, Onuimo again made its position clear at the polls. It stood by its own understanding of zoning.
There is another part of Kizito’s argument that also deserves correction. He cited the absence of a senatorial candidate from Isiala Mbano as evidence of the LGA’s commitment to zoning, arguing that Senator Patrick Ndubueze of the Okigwe/Onuimo bloc is still within the arrangement. That is not entirely correct. A PDP senatorial candidate for Imo North is from Isiala Mbano, even though the Okigwe/Onuimo bloc is yet to complete its current turn. This is against the background that the Mbano bloc has already produced Senator Ifeanyi Ararume of Isiala Mbano and Senator Frank Ibezim of Ehime Mbano at different times. So, how do we explain this? If zoning is a principle to be defended, should it apply only when it serves our interest? If we invoke it for the House of Representatives seat but ignore it when discussing the Senate, what are we practising?
I also disagree with the suggestion that Princess Onuoha’s victory in 2023 should be treated as the beginning of a second round of rotation for Isiala Mbano. Now that Princess Onuoha is no longer on the ballot, another question naturally arises. What assurance is there that the next candidate from Isiala Mbano, if elected in 2027, will not seek a second term in 2031? And if that happens, will we again be told that Isiala Mbano began its second round in 2023 and is therefore entitled to another four years? These are not questions asked out of malice. They are questions that must be answered if we want zoning to mean the same thing to everybody.
The matter before us, therefore, should not be reduced to emotional blackmail or selective memory. The history is clear: Onuimo had the seat from 1999 to 2007, Okigwe from 2007 to 2015, and Isiala Mbano from 2015 to 2023. The political choices of 2020 cannot make Onuimo permanently indebted to Isiala Mbano, just as Onuimo’s position in 2023 cannot erase the fact that Isiala Mbano has completed its turn. If zoning means anything, it must mean that every LGA gets its turn and respects the turn of others. Isiala Mbano has had eight years. Okigwe has had its eight years. The seat must now move to Onuimo. Anything short of that in 2027 is not rotation; it is unfairness. It would amount to asking Onuimo to accept a rule that applies to it but changes whenever it is another LGA’s turn. We cannot preach zoning when it favours us and explain it away when it does not. If we truly believe in the arrangement, then this should not be a difficult decision: it is Onuimo’s turn, and anything short of Onuimo this time would be an injustice to the very principle of zoning we claim to defend.
