I read with utter amusement the attempt by one Nnamdi Iloduba, a fictional name concocted to mask the real identity of the faceless amateur rejoinder writer on Andy Uba’s payroll, to disparage my person and my opinion expressed in my column in the Daily Sun of April 11, 2008, entitled “Uba and his legal victory.”

It has never been in my character to reply critics of my writings especially obscure hack writers of Iloduba’s ilk, because I believe that as readers, they have the right to criticize me and the right of reply too.

I at times relinquish my page for my readers’ feedback, whether such views are positive or critical. I do this bearing in mind that my readers are my esteemed audience to whom I owe a lot of respect and affection and not hatred as portrayed ignorantly by the apprentice writer.

I love readers’ reaction but they must be constructive and objective enough. I have decided to reply Uba’s hatchet man not because of the profundity of his argument but for the mortal inaccuracies it contained. This repy is to put the records straight and prevent uninformed readers who might stumble on the satanic rejoinder from taking his jaundiced views on me and my article as the gospel truth.

I am more amused by the writer’s limited knowledge of the very issue he dabbled into. His categorization of Nigerian columnists into three is never his original idea. And he made a poor copy of that idea. If he were painstaking enough, he would have been humble enough to acknowledge his source for that is the hallmark of rigorous research. Even at that, I still fault his jaundiced and non-empirical analysis. Judging by the plethora of columnists we have in Nigeria today, I think that the scope of his research would have shade more light on the theoretical foundations as well as philosophical underpinnings his research were based beyond the three disjointed typologies he limply parroted. Rather than do the right thing, his warped mind and dwarfed intellect could not allow him carry out a thorough research on Nigerian columnists because of his innate hatred and great disdain on them as shown by his un-analytical and illogical deductions.

By alluding to such ill-digested postulations, the writer cloaked himself or gave the impression of an intellectual, whereas he is not. He is just a poor imitator of high sounding academic issues without a thorough grasp of their basic fundamentals hence his wrong application of the outcome of a research in one area to yet another un-related area.

He is just a lazy writer who depends on the crumbs that fall from his paymaster’s table. Otherwise he would have explained the psychological schools of thought that reinforced the stratification of Nigerian columnists into three inchoative typologies. Is Iloduba’s conclusions based on empirical research? The answer is no.
For him to have arrived at such conclusions would normally require some years of research and a survey of a representative study of Nigerian columnists for his research outcome to be worthwhile. Unfortunately, his article failed on all the known basic parameters for an empirical research, thereby making his conclusions suspect and non-definitive. It lacked all the known paradigms and dialectics of a research. At best, his conclusions are the products of his abrasive and depraved mind.

To put the records right, I am a writer and newspaper columnist but would not like to be categorized, labeled or typified especially in the mould of Iloduba. First, Iloduba displayed his utter ignorance of media issues by making such generalized conclusions based on the columnist’s one article only. Is that how he conducts his super intellectual research? Rationality and objectivity demand that he cites more than one article where I have behaved in the manner he deliberately portrayed me. Let the lazy writer understand that having written several articles on Anambra debacle and the dramatis personae, I expect him to have cited more instances that can possibly place me in the pigeon-hole description he cowardly consigned me in his poorly written rejoinder in the Daily Sun of April 18, 2008.

As a person, I am not against anybody rating me but I insist that the yardstick for such a rating must be fair enough. It must be devoid of embellishments, colouring and prejudice displayed by Iloduba. I don’t dwell in self-praise or hanker after honour or praise. As for the type of columnist I am, I don’t need the rating of a pseudo-rejoinder writer to determine that. Instead, I leave that to the reading public to judge and not to the dictates of a myopic arm-chair critic.

For clarity sake, I write out of personal conviction and my grasp of the issue at stake. If that means lack of ideology, I plead guilty. If ideology means that I won’t say the truth as it is, to hell with that stupid sense of ideology. If ideology means that there will be no peace and progress in Anambra or Southeast, let that warped notion of ideology perish forthwith. My thesis on Uba and his legal victory still stands. The fact is that come 2010, there will be a gubernatorial election in Anambra State as ruled by the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Being the apex court in the land, its ruling can never be subverted by the ruling of a lower court or tribunal. If such obtains, it is a legal aberration, oddity and absurdity. It can also lead to judicial anarchy in the state.

My thesis is further anchored on the fact that Gov. Peter Obi will not hand over power to Andy Uba in 2010 because the Appeal Court did not say so. Those attributing such to the ruling are deluding themselves. They are wallowing in dream-like fantasy. It is only the 2010 governorship election in Anambra that will produce Obi’s successor and not the other way round. Uba’s election victory and subsequent inauguration as governor of Anambra State in May 2007, though short-lived, was a fact of history, which has come and gone no matter its imperfections. It now belongs to the archives and antiquities.

That Andy ruled the state for a month or thereabout and handed over to Obi as directed by the Supreme Court was equally a fact. That has dignified him as an ex-governor of Anambra State. That Obi will hand over power to Andy after 2010 without an election is a fiction. It is like a mere erotic euphoria devoid of actual orgasmic resolution. Constitutionally, Obi has the right to run for a second term in office if he so wishes. And no court’s ruling in Nigeria can invalidate it. Are Andy and his unschooled writers aware of this constitutional right of the incumbent governor before celebrating that symbolic victory given by the appeal court?

That Anambra is the first state that would hold its gubernatorial election in a date different from other states in Nigeria is a fact of history. Other states that have joined that league now include, Rivers, Bayelsa, Sokoto, Kebbi, Adamawa and Kogi. Discussing what will happen in Anambra in 2010 is indeed not outside the critical lenses of columnists as the writer would want us believe. Rather than that, the columnists are constitutionally empowered to analyze issues in the polity with a view to informing and correcting some lapses. For a columnist to opt to perform this constitutional role should not in any way elicit disparaging, calling of names or threats.

On what Uba would have done to Anambra nay Ndi Igbo as a super public servant in Obasanjo’s administration, I say a lot. For instance, the late Dr. Chuba Okadigbo as adviser to Alhaji Shehu Shagari on political matters ensured that the former Biafran war-lord, Chief Emeka Odumegwu–Ojukwu, was given a State pardon that ended his 13 years of self-exile. Uba would have used his position to ensure that the Igbo fighter, Chief Ralph Uwazuruike, regained his freedom from Obasanjo’s gulag particularly when those charged along with him from other tribes have been released except the MASSOB leader. He should have added his weight for the clamour for the Southeast to have one additional state. He should have attracted at least one federal project for his state or Ndi Igbo. He should have ensured that peace reigned in his state in the period his master ruled but instead Anambra was turned into a political battleground of sorts, which Professor Chinua Achebe lamented a lot.

I don’t agree with the writer that Andy’s surname is his only crime. Andy’s real crime, if any, will be exposed when Obasanjo’s administration is probed. His surname in itself should never constitute a crime at all. Rather than being a burden, I think that his surname was indeed a veritable asset, with which he rode to political prominence. Without that surname, Andy is obscure. He should be very grateful to his younger brother, Chief Chris Uba, for popularizing that name. Uba should be proud of that heritage instead of complaining.

On 2010 and who governs Anambra State, my advice to Uba and others wishing to govern that state is for them to be warming up for campaign now. Already INEC is getting its men and materials ready to conduct a hitch-free election in that state come 2010 when Obi’s first term will expire. If you are in doubt, please ask the INEC boss, Professor Maurice Iwu. Nothing can be further from the truth.