By Sebastine Okafor, Ph.D.
In the part 1 of this piece, I alluded to how I was able to extract the information of all that transpired as a well-trained columnist, investigative and interpretative journalist. I will proceed with detailing my findings in this part 2.
Less than 24 hours after a meeting with the National Leader of the party, Sen. Seriake Dickson, another meeting was held at the residence of an aide to the National Leader in Maitama Extension, Mpape, Abuja. The meeting was moderated by the National Secretary, who reportedly presented a version of events that was strongly disputed. Perhaps he forgot that he was dealing with young people who keep records and documentation.
The meeting lasted more than three hours and was attended by only some of those who had participated in the earlier meeting with Senator Dickson. Several others reportedly stayed away, including the Enugu East Senatorial candidate backed by one faction, the gubernatorial aspirant from Nike and former Senator, and the House of Representatives candidate for Enugu North and South Federal Constituency, among others.
The moderator, during his speech, said that the National Leadership had agreed to return all the Protem Chairmen who were in place prior to the congress across the nation and that this was the reason they were at a crossroads with Enugu. He also asserted that Dr. Johnpaul and his team had been defiant and never wanted to participate in any discussion, which, according to him, made the National Leadership ignore them.
These were claims that even he himself knew were untrue. As our elders say, “An elder who lies forgets that the younger ones may still remember the truth.” A man who stands before people must be careful with his words because records do not forget what the mouth says.
Taking the floor, he accused the National Secretary of presenting what he described as “childish lies” and questioned the basis of his narrative. He recounted how his team waited for him at Transcorp Hilton until 3 a.m. on May 6, how they met him in his office on May 7, and how appointments were subsequently fixed at Guzape on two occasions, only for the team to arrive and wait for hours without meeting him. He also questioned the planned installation of Prof. Akubue as the State Chairman, among other issues.
These questions, among others, exposed serious contradictions in his narrative and left his claims difficult to defend. As the saying goes, “When a man digs a pit with his own hands, he should not be surprised when he falls into it.” The attempt to rewrite the sequence of events only made the existing records more relevant.
The meeting also descended into heated exchanges between an Awgu-born Senatorial aspirant and the gubernatorial candidate backed by one faction. The gubernatorial candidate reportedly accused the Senatorial aspirant of abusing and maligning him in the media. The Senatorial aspirant rejected the allegation and responded in equally strong terms. It was reported that, in his words, he said he could not support a placeholder who was not running an election to win but was allegedly participating merely to play a role and secure space for the APC.
The confrontation became so heated that the convener had to intervene to prevent the meeting from breaking down completely.
To me, the exchange further exposed the deep mistrust and unresolved disagreements among the various interests claiming to represent NDC in Enugu State.
After the situation became calm, a proposal was presented which, according to many observers, suggested that those who claim to be Enugu NDC leaders either do not genuinely want peace or may be pursuing interests that are inconsistent with the party’s growth in the state.
They agreed that there had been a congress whose outcome was not properly managed and that there was therefore a need for harmonisation. However, they proposed that the harmonisation should take place after the election among three groups: the Dr. Johnpaul group, Protem Obetta and other interested parties.
Under the proposal, the Dr. Johnpaul group would provide only 5 out of the 29 State Executive positions. They would also retain the Protem Chairman whom the National Secretary claimed was brought in by an NWC member and former APC Enugu lawyer who, according to the account presented, is from the same village and ward as the said Protem Chairman.
They further proposed that all court cases should be withdrawn, after which the party structure would be announced and properly authenticated after the election.
If that account is correct, it raises legitimate questions about the basis for the choice. The central political question remains: why should a disputed structure be the foundation of a reconciliation process that is supposed to resolve a disputed structure? That, in my view, is hardly a convincing formula for reconciliation. It is increasingly difficult to understand how a lasting peace can emerge when individuals who are themselves accused of contributing to the crisis are expected to determine the terms of its resolution. A genuine reconciliation process must be transparent, inclusive and acceptable to all sides.
It is also clear why people should be wary and meticulous about supporting or investing in NDC-peddled candidates because, from the events unfolding, such candidacies may struggle to gain the legitimacy, structure and organisational backing required to fly.
Political investors, aspirants and supporters must therefore ask difficult questions before committing their resources, reputation and political future to candidates presented under a disputed structure. They must demand clarity on the party’s leadership, congresses, primaries, legal standing and the authenticity of the structures under which candidates are being presented.
A political party cannot build confidence among voters while its own internal processes remain surrounded by contradictions, competing structures and unresolved litigation. Until there is genuine reconciliation, proper documentation and a transparent resolution of the Enugu crisis, anyone dealing with the party must exercise caution and conduct proper due diligence.
The records are available, the meetings took place, the appointments were made, and the communications exist. Those who attempt to rewrite history should therefore remember that political arguments may be forgotten, but documented records remain available to speak for themselves.
