A Response to Arc. Nya-Etok Ezekiel’s “Public Statement”.
My cerebral and well respected brother, Arc. Nya-Etok Ezekiel’s public statement presents itself as a manifesto of conscience, reason, and principled leadership. It is written in the language of conviction, Scripture, and civic responsibility. Yet, beneath this polished rhetoric lies a troubling contradiction; the widening gap between what is proclaimed and what is practised.
Arc. Ezekiel describes his appointment under Bola Ahmed Tinubu as a “call to national service.” Yet barely two years into that service, he has transformed his public office into a political platform for endorsements.
If public office is truly a trust, it should not become a springboard for partisan mobilisation. The moment a serving Executive Director of the state uses his institutional stature to organise political endorsements, neutrality collapses. What is presented as “service” begins to resemble political investment.
Public trust is not preserved by speeches about integrity, it is preserved by restraint.
We are told that Arc. Ezekiel did not join the APC immediately because he “lives by conviction.” This narrative invites skepticism.
If conviction was truly the guiding force, why did it align perfectly with career security and political advantage? For clarity, he was appointed by an APC government, remains in office, observes quietly and once fully embedded, he declares loyalty.
This is not moral discernment, it looks more like political calibration.
Conviction that matures only after one is safely positioned is not courage. It is caution, dressed up as principle.
Quoting 1 Peter 3:15 gives the impression of moral grounding. But Scripture is not validated by citation; it is validated by conduct.
When public officials invoke faith while endorsing political actors whose records are burdened by controversy, governance failures, and ethical questions, faith becomes a rhetorical shield rather than a moral compass.
Spiritual language should illuminate truth, not obscure uncomfortable realities.
Arc. Ezekiel promises “data-driven, performance-based” endorsements for Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Umo Eno and Godswill Akpabio
This raises a fundamental question; what data, benchmarks, independent audits and citizen-led evaluations?
Nigeria today faces deepening poverty, currency instability, youth unemployment, worsening insecurity, millions of out of school children and institutional distrust
Any “performance-based” endorsement that does not seriously confront these realities is not evidence-driven. It is selective storytelling.
Reason is not demonstrated by PowerPoint slides, it is demonstrated by confronting failure honestly.
The proposed town hall is strictly by invitation, with “selected” delegates. This is not participatory democracy, it is controlled consensus.
When political dialogue is filtered through handpicked audiences, dissent is managed, not respected. Questions are curated and approval is pre-arranged.
A truly cerebral engagement is open, uncomfortable, and unpredictable. Anything else is political theatre wearing academic robes.
Arc. Ezekiel rejects “jamboree politics” and promises substance. Yet, his statement contains almost no concrete policy critique, no sectoral analysis, no measurable failures, no reform scorecards.
We hear about vision, alignment, philosophy, stability and capacity but nothing about budget performance, housing delivery outcomes, anti-corruption records, procurement transparency and social welfare indicators.
Without this, “issue-based politics” just becomes branding, not practice.
The most troubling aspect of this statement is not party-switching. In mature democracies, political realignment is normal. The problem is this; my brother was once perceived as independent, and now speaks entirely in establishment language.
Every phrase fits comfortably within the ruling party’s narrative, every doubt has disappeared and every tension has been resolved, conveniently.
This is not the evolution of thought, it is the domestication of dissent.
Arc. Ezekiel says he speaks for “his people.” Yet, there is no evidence that ordinary citizens in Ikot Ekpene or Akwa Ibom have mandated these endorsements.
Representation requires listening before speaking. Endorsement requires only proximity to power.
One builds democracy, tThe other consolidates hierarchy.
In conclusion, I concede that his statement is eloquent, carefully structured, intellectually styled and spiritually framed.
But it avoids the central moral question; how does one reconcile “integrity” with unquestioning alignment to a system many Nigerians experience as unjust, extractive, and unaccountable?
How does one claim “courage of conviction” while standing safely within the corridors of power?
How does one preach “accountability” without confronting failure?
Arc. Ezekiel’s statement is not evidence of political maturity, it simply shows political accommodation.
It reflects a familiar Nigerian tragedy; bright, thoughtful individuals who begin with ideals and end with justifications.
History will not judge leaders by how beautifully they defended power, it will judge them by whether they challenged it when it mattered.
And on that test, this statement falls painfully short.
