Concerning the Niger Delta Development Commission, NDDC Annual Rice Palliative programme particularly the 2021 edition which has gone controversial already and polarised Cross Riverians across lines, I (still) feel compelled to hold an opinion.
My opinion is in respect of analysing the man in the centre-current of the controversy and polarisation, Rt. Hon. (Otuekong) Orok Otu Duke the sole supervisor of the project in 2020 and co-supervisor (with Cletus Obun) in 2021 –against whom some stood, for whom others stood like the Rock of Gibraltar, and concerning whom some decided to be neither here nor there.
The sins of Duke have been outlined thus by his critics:
1. The distribution of the rice palliative especially in the south was not done in line with NDDC Guidelines which clearly stipulated category of beneficiaries, namely, youth, women and the disabled.
C/River benefits from NDDC largesse 25 years after
Cross River has just started benefiting from the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) Christmas largesse twenty-five years after it was instituted for the nine states of the Niger Delta region NEGROIDHAVEN can report. pic.twitter.com/NYoXvmSBdw
— NEGROID HAVEN (@NegroidHaven) January 21, 2022
✓Duke’s reaction to this accusation is that the guidelines developed by Offiong Ephraim of the NDDC Director for Youth and Sport was an afterthought seeing the date signed on it read 10th January. This is plausible. But, even at that he still did his distribution to these categories of persons. Even his critics will agree with him because there are unassailable facts. Though, he added another category: APC and PDP. Even at that, Duke an APC member distributing rice palliative to PDP. He did this in 2020 when he was the sole supervisor. Good intentioned?
2. The co-supervisor is alleged to have given rice to very limited number of random persons at his home creating the impression that it was a personal act of benevolence.
✓A Dukean response will be, what population of the people will be appropriate, unlimited etc? Again, Duke has explained that he used his property for purpose of security and organisation which is trite explanation. But, Duke was supposed to. For me, Duke is partly excusable and partly inexcusable.
3. the distribution of the rice palliative in the south has been inundated by allegations of corruption and thievery.
✓A Dukean response will be: it’s only an allegation, no facts and/or evidence. Only allegations. May be this is why Ukorebi Esien asked Agba Jalingo to forward a petition to the EFCC, ICPC etc. And why the tag of media trial is apt one may guess.
Again, this brings to mind the ‘business Mathematics’ made by my neighbour, friend and humanitarian, Tom Alims, where he looked at the actual price of 25kg of rice by the number of 300 bags pegged against N10, 000, 000.00 only and what went viral in the public. But, a rebuttal against Alims would say it seems he failed to addressed himself to the fact that the NDDC would have given out this rice palliative at a contract sum such that contract price would vary from the actual.
From the above, Duke’s supervision may not be as totally reprehensible as portrayed. This is in no way excusing him all the same. At least, the final buck should stops at his table; so, any compromise of the NDDC annual rice palliative programme in Cross River takes ultimate responsibility to the laps of Duke and Cletus Obun.
If I may make a defence for Duke, I think, given the arguments, Duke’s sin wasn’t intentional, would have been born by good intentions of the heart but, a miscalculation of the head inspired by concerns of fairness, safety, equity etc.
This is my opinion. I therefore rest.
Efio-Ita Nyok
Uyo
Wednesday, 2nd February 2022
