KELECHI UZOMAH: THE BLACKMAILER WHO COULD NOT GET ATTENTION

Kizito Duru

I read the rebuttal issued by the Okigwe Zone Youths Mandate with keen interest. It was as revealing as it was instructive. One key takeaway is that a person who presents himself as the National President of an organisation to which, according to the organisation itself, he does not belong, has a serious problem of moral standing when he lectures a politician on character, responsibility and readiness for public office. 

The Okigwe Zone Youths Mandate did not merely disagree with Kelechi Uzomah's publication. It categorically stated that he is not a member of the association and has never been its National President. That clarification changes the colour of the entire publication because it means that a man who was not speaking for the organisation presented himself as though he was. When a political argument begins by borrowing an identity and authority that the owners of that identity say you do not possess, it becomes difficult to take the moral lecture that follows seriously.

I have watched the Uzomah episode for some time, and I think his frustration with Hon. Uchenna Agasu is understandable, even if his method is not. There have been claims that he made several attempts to gain access to the young candidate without receiving the attention he wanted. 

There have also been suggestions that Uzomah muted the idea of some financial settlement. I will leave those as claims because I was not present when those conversations, if they happened, took place. What is clear, however, is that Agasu has not allowed himself to be dragged into a politics where everyone demanding his attention must receive it. He has chosen to concentrate on his campaign and on people he believes can contribute meaningfully to it. If Uzomah expected repeated attempts, pressure or provocative writings to compel Agasu to engage him, then he appears to have misunderstood the man he is dealing with.

 When a politician refuses to engage you, you can return to the issues and make a compelling argument, or you can cast aspersions in the hope that the person will eventually notice you. The second approach may produce noise, but noise is not necessarily influence. From the publication, I struggle to find any tangible argument establishing why Uchenna Agasu is incapable of representing Okigwe North Federal Constituency. We are told that his thank-you tour came late, and from that, a prophecy about him sleeping in the Green Chamber is constructed. But how does the timing of a thank-you tour establish legislative incompetence? What has Uzomah told us about Agasu's education, business experience, political exposure, understanding of the constituency or capacity to lobby and negotiate for his people? These are the questions that should form the substance of a serious critique.

Agasu's background is an open book. His parentage, education, business journey and political rise are increasingly known. If there is something in that record that makes him unfit for the National Assembly, those making the argument should bring it forward. Nobody is saying Agasu should be above criticism. But criticism should be about something. You cannot take a minor issue, stretch it beyond its natural meaning and present it as evidence of a man's inability to represent a federal constituency. When substantive ammunition is difficult to find, one begins to understand why some people resort to personal insinuations and inconsequential issues.

The irony is that Uzomah has argued that the Onuimo turn should be respected in the coming election. Now an Onuimo son has emerged as the candidate, and instead of discussing the principle of rotation and the qualities of the person produced from that area, we are being treated to an attempt to pull the candidate down. Of course, supporting a political turn does not oblige anyone to support every candidate who emerges from the area. That is legitimate. But then, make the case. Tell us what Agasu has done wrong, where his record fails, what he lacks and why someone else is better equipped. Support the argument with facts. What is difficult to understand is the movement from “it is the turn of Onuimo” to “the Onuimo candidate must be discredited” without explaining what changed.

The truth is that Agasu has been building his political structure and reaching out to resourceful sons and daughters of Okigwe North. He identifies talents and useful skills and brings people into his train based on what they can contribute. From what I have seen, nobody needs to manufacture controversy to be noticed by him. People have become involved simply because they believe they have something useful to contribute. It is not every person who knocks on a politician's door that must be admitted. When the door remains closed, the mature response is to make your argument elsewhere rather than attempt to break it down with blackmail, if that is indeed what is happening.

What I find particularly interesting is that Agasu has not appeared interested in this fight. He and his media team have largely continued with their activities without engaging everyone who throws a stone in their direction. That may be what has irritated those seeking a reaction. Some of us, however, do not have the luxury of ignoring everything we consider provocative. Where a claim is false or an argument dishonest, we can confront it with the truth. Even then, the burden remains on the person making the allegation to prove it. Nobody should treat every social-media attack as a political emergency.

There is also something about Uzomah's intervention that reminds me of a drowning man reaching for anything within reach. Having failed, as it appears, to get the attention he wanted from Agasu, he has found another angle from which to approach him. But Agasu's campaign is no longer about one man's attention. People across Okigwe North are watching, and some will respond when they believe falsehoods are being presented as facts. A candidate does not have to answer every critic personally before people around him can identify an unfair attack.

At the end of the day, the issue is not whether Kelechi Uzomah can write another article against Uchenna Agasu. He certainly can. The issue is whether he can make a substantive case without hiding behind an organisation he does not represent, reducing criticism to personal attacks or turning every unanswered demand for attention into another reason to attack the person who refused to engage him. If he has a genuine case against Agasu, let him make it. If there is something in Agasu's record that should concern the people of Okigwe North, let him bring it into the open. But if the argument is only that a thank-you tour came late, then he has not told us much about the candidate's capacity to represent the constituency.

For now, shame on him for impersonating a group. We seem to be dealing with a criminally minded individual.