29/07/2026
*RESPONDING TO THE ATTACK ON HON. PAT OKAFOR*
When Noise Meets the Record: Let the People Judge the Work
Dear Ekene Ogene promise
There is a difference between constructive criticism and political mischief. There is also a difference between asking legitimate questions and deliberately presenting half-truths in a manner calculated to deceive the public.
The recent attempt to discredit Hon. Pat Okafor may be lengthy, but length is not the same as substance. When the emotions are removed and the arguments are examined carefully, one fundamental question remains:
What exactly is the evidence behind the allegations being made?
Politics should not become a competition in manufacturing accusations. If a person claims that a representative has failed, the proper thing is to establish the failure with facts—not rhetoric, assumptions and insinuations.
FIRST, LET US CORRECT THE FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING
Hon. Pat Okafor is a Member of the Anambra State House of Assembly, not the Governor, a Commissioner, a Local Government Chairman or the head of a ministry.
The primary constitutional responsibilities of a State House of Assembly member include making laws, representing constituents, performing legislative oversight, debating matters of public importance and exercising the Assembly's constitutional functions.
Therefore, asking why a legislator did not personally upgrade every health centre, employ people directly, or execute every government project is either a serious misunderstanding of government responsibilities—or a deliberate attempt to create one.
A legislator is not a recruiting agency.
A legislator is not a Ministry of Health.
A legislator is not the executive arm of the government.
And a legislator cannot appropriate public funds unilaterally and spend them according to personal preference.
So before anybody declares a legislator a failure, the first responsibility is to judge him by the duties of the office he occupies.
THE 2023 ELECTION: WAS IT REALLY A “MISTAKE”?
Ekene ogene promise one of the minions in Apga media describe the 2023 election as a mistake and claim that voters were “hoodwinked and bamboozled.”
That argument is intellectually weak.
Elections are decided by citizens exercising their constitutional right to vote. The people of Onitsha North II were not children who accidentally wandered into a polling unit.
They made a political choice.
And if the argument is that voters made a mistake because they voted for Hon. Pat Okafor, then the obvious question is:
What has Hon. Pat Okafor actually done in office that proves that claim?
Do not tell the people that they made a mistake. Show them the failure.
If the representative has failed, identify the legislative bills he sponsored or supported that harmed the constituency.
Identify the motions he moved that negatively affected his people.
Identify the oversight interventions that he abandoned.
Identify the constituency interventions that were promised but never delivered.
Politics should be about evidence.
ON POLITICAL MOVEMENTS AND PARTY CHANGES
Much has also been made of political movements and party affiliations.
But party affiliation is not a substitute for performance.
A politician may change political platforms; what the electorate ultimately has the right to examine is whether the person representing them has delivered within the constitutional limits of the office.
If someone wants to campaign against Hon. Pat Okafor because of his political journey, that is their democratic right.
But political movement does not automatically erase legislative performance.
The voters are intelligent enough to ask a more important question:
What has he done with the mandate he received?
“NO TOWN HALL MEETING” — THEN SHOW THE EVIDENCE
The allegation that Hon. Pat Okafor has not organized any town-hall meeting from 2023 till date is a serious claim.
But serious claims require serious evidence.
Where is the official constituency engagement record?
Where are the invitations, announcements, community interactions and documented engagements that allegedly prove complete absence of constituency interaction?
More importantly, is representation measured only by a formally named “town hall meeting”?
A legislator can engage constituents through community visits, meetings with community leaders, religious bodies, youth groups, traditional institutions, professional groups, direct interventions and constituency-level consultations.
If the opposition wants to argue that Hon. Pat Okafor has failed in constituency engagement, then let them demonstrate the failure comprehensively rather than reducing representation to one particular event format.
ON EMPLOYMENT FACILITATION
The demand for evidence of people allegedly assisted into employment is reasonable.
But the same standard must apply to the accusers.
If they claim that no employment opportunity was facilitated, they should equally provide evidence for that categorical assertion.
And there is an important distinction:
A legislator may facilitate, recommend, advocate or intervene on behalf of constituents without being the statutory authority that makes the final appointment.
Therefore, the correct question is not:
«“Did Pat Okafor personally employ them?”»
He has no constitutional power to personally employ people into the state civil service.
The proper question is:
Did his office assist constituents in accessing legitimate opportunities within government programmes and recruitment processes?
That is the standard by which the claim should be evaluated.
PRIMARY HEALTHCARE: ANOTHER CONFUSED ARGUMENT
The article attempts to credit the State Government's primary healthcare policy entirely to the Governor while simultaneously attacking Hon. Pat Okafor for allegedly not attracting improvements to health facilities.
This is another attempt to judge different offices by different constitutional responsibilities.
If the Governor's administration upgraded healthcare facilities across the state, that is a government programme.
If Hon. Pat Okafor advocated for, facilitated or attracted an intervention to a particular facility, that is a legislative representation issue.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
And if the opposition claims that nothing whatsoever has happened in any health facility within the constituency through Hon. Pat Okafor's representation, then they should identify the facilities, establish the period under review, and present verifiable evidence.
“Nothing happened” is not evidence.
ON THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
This is perhaps where the criticism reveals the biggest misunderstanding of legislative oversight.
A committee chairman does not personally run the Ministry of Justice.
The legislative function is to scrutinize, oversee, investigate where necessary, make recommendations, consider relevant bills and exercise the powers assigned to the committee by the House.
Therefore, asking what a committee chairman did is legitimate.
But the answer cannot be measured by whether the chairman personally renovated a courthouse or employed a lawyer.
The proper evaluation is:
What legislative work did the committee undertake? What matters came before it? What oversight activities occurred? What recommendations were made? What legislative outcomes followed?
If the critics have evidence of failure, let them produce it.
THE “QUARTERLY CONSTITUENCY FUNDS” ARGUMENT NEEDS CORRECTION
This is perhaps the most misleading part of the entire publication.
The question, “What happened to the quarterly constituency funds allocated to each House of Assembly member?” creates the impression that every legislator receives a personal quarterly cash allocation which he is free to spend.
That is not how public finance should be represented.
A legislator does not simply receive government funds into a personal account and decide to build a borehole, install streetlights or reconstruct a culvert.
Public expenditure is subject to appropriation, procurement, authorization and implementation procedures.
So if the writers are alleging that Hon. Pat Okafor received a specific amount of public money and diverted or misused it, they should state:
The amount.
The budget head.
The financial year.
The appropriation.
The implementing agency.
The project.
And the evidence of misuse.
Anything short of this is political insinuation.
NOW LET US TALK ABOUT THE PROJECTS
This is where the people should be encouraged to use their eyes rather than political propaganda.
Solar streetlights have been installed in locations within Onitsha North, including areas such as Housing Estate, Benjamin Street, Okosieme Street, DMGS Roundabout and the Woliwo axis.
There have also been interventions involving DMGS Roundabout, culverts and drainage-related infrastructure, borehole rehabilitation and other constituency interventions.
The proper question is not whether somebody can shout “rag-tag projects” online.
The proper question is:
Are these projects physically present?
If they are, who facilitated them?
What was their purpose?
Who benefits from them?
And what was the condition of those locations before the interventions?
A politician's opponents are free to call a streetlight “small.”
But the trader who returns home safely because a previously dark road is illuminated may not consider it small.
A resident whose flooding problem is reduced because a culvert has been rehabilitated may not consider it small.
A community that gains access to functioning water infrastructure does not measure its value by the size of somebody's social-media vocabulary.
Development is experienced by the people, not defined by online commentators.
THE REAL TEST OF REPRESENTATION
Let us stop pretending that representation means building a road every week.
The people elected Hon. Pat Okafor to the State House of Assembly.
Therefore, his performance should be examined across four broad areas:
1. Legislation — What laws has he contributed to?
2. Representation — How has he carried the interests and concerns of Onitsha North II into the Assembly?
3. Oversight — How has he participated in holding government institutions accountable?
4. Constituency intervention — What legitimate interventions has he facilitated for the benefit of his constituents?
That is the scorecard.
Not social-media insults.
Not party propaganda.
Not emotional references to 2023.
Not attempts to rewrite history.
LET THE PEOPLE ASK THE OTHER SIDE SOME QUESTIONS TOO
If Hon. Pat Okafor is being accused of failure, then the opposition should answer some basic questions:
Where is your evidence that the projects mentioned do not exist?
Where is your evidence that he has not facilitated any intervention whatsoever?
Where is your evidence that he misappropriated constituency funds?
Where is the evidence that he personally claimed to be the statutory employer responsible for state recruitment?
Where is the evidence that his legislative record is empty?
And most importantly:
What alternative record are you presenting to the people?
Because it is not enough to say, “Pat Okafor has failed.”
The people deserve to know:
What exactly has he failed to do, and what is the evidence?
ONCE BITTEN, TWICE SHY — BUT ALSO, ONCE SHOWN, ALWAYS SEEN
The opposition borrowed the expression, “Once bitten, twice shy.”
That proverb can be applied in another direction.
The people of Onitsha North II have also learned to distinguish between noise and evidence, propaganda and performance, promises and measurable interventions.
Ndi Onitsha are sophisticated people.
They are traders, professionals, academics, entrepreneurs, artisans and community leaders. They cannot be permanently deceived by carefully packaged social-media narratives.
They will look at the record.
They will inspect the projects.
They will examine the legislative performance.
They will consider the representation they have received.
And they will make their judgment.
Eziokwu bu ndụ. Truth is life.
Politics should therefore not be about manufacturing enemies or destroying reputations. It should be about presenting facts and allowing the people to decide.
Hon. Pat Okafor is not above criticism.
No elected official should be.
But criticism must be fair, factual and intellectually honest.
If there are shortcomings, let them be identified.
If there are mistakes, let them be corrected.
If there are allegations, let evidence accompany them.
But let nobody confuse political hostility with accountability.
The people of Onitsha North II deserve better than propaganda.
They deserve facts.
They deserve records.
They deserve accountability.
And when all the noise is gone, the people—not social-media commentators—will have the final say.
Hon. Pat Okafor Media Team ©
