NEWS
SELECTIVE OUTRAGE, CONVENIENT AMNESIA AND THE BURDEN OF HISTORY: A COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO UCHE AGUORU’S OPEN LETTER TO GOVERNOR ALEX OTTI
Prof. Ikechukwu Nwokocha
There is an old saying that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. More dangerous, however, are those who deliberately rewrite history in an attempt to escape responsibility for the very problems they helped create.
That is precisely the impression left by the latest open letter authored by APC Abia State Publicity Secretary, Uche Aguoru, titled “Enough of the Propaganda: Abia Workers Deserve Dignity, Not Poverty.”
On the surface, the letter appears to champion workers’ welfare. A closer examination, however, reveals something entirely different, a politically convenient narrative carefully stripped of historical context, selective in its outrage, economical with the facts, and remarkably silent about the years of institutional decay that brought Abia to the point Governor Alex Otti inherited it.
The greatest weakness of Aguoru’s letter is not its criticism. Democracy thrives on criticism. Its greatest weakness is its refusal to acknowledge history.
One cannot pretend that Abia’s challenges began in May 2023. One cannot speak about workers’ welfare without speaking about those who presided over years of unpaid salaries, abandoned infrastructure, pension backlogs, and financial mismanagement. One cannot suddenly become the defender of workers after remaining politically comfortable throughout an era when those same workers endured some of the worst conditions in Abia’s history. That omission alone renders the letter intellectually incomplete.
Aguoru begins by claiming that government should be measured by the quality of life of the people rather than publicity. On that principle, many Abians would readily agree. Ironically, that same principle delivers one of the strongest indictments of the administrations that governed Abia before Alex Otti.
For years, Abia became synonymous nationally with salary arrears, abandoned projects, collapsing public institutions, dilapidated schools, broken healthcare facilities, impassable roads, environmental degradation and an economy struggling under the weight of poor governance. It was under successive administrations before Governor Otti that civil servants waited months for salaries, pensioners staged repeated protests over unpaid pensions and gratuities, local government workers suffered prolonged hardship, and basic public services steadily deteriorated. Those realities are matters of public record.
Yet Aguoru asks Nigerians to suspend history and believe that Abia’s problems suddenly materialized in 2026. That is not analysis. That is political revisionism.
Aguoru repeatedly cites the figure of ₦22,000 as though it represents the official salary structure of the Abia State Government. What he carefully avoids explaining is who exactly earns ₦22,000, under which salary scale, under which agency, under what employment arrangement, whether such workers belong to the mainstream state civil service or autonomous agencies with separate remuneration structures, and whether salary harmonisation or verification processes are ongoing. Without answering these critical questions, the figure becomes less a factual presentation and more a political slogan.
Perhaps the most astonishing aspect of Aguoru’s letter is its complete silence regarding the historical circumstances that created Abia’s fiscal burden. Where was this level of moral outrage when civil servants were owed salaries for months? Where were the strongly worded open letters when pensioners repeatedly protested over unpaid pensions and gratuities? Where was the righteous anger when roads across Aba, Umuahia and other parts of the state became symbols of governmental neglect? Where was the sustained advocacy when public schools decayed, hospitals deteriorated, investor confidence collapsed and governance itself became synonymous with dysfunction?
If workers deserved dignity then, as they certainly did, why was the language of “wickedness,” “criminality” and “irresponsibility” absent? Selective outrage weakens credibility. Consistency strengthens it.
Aguoru also accuses Governor Otti’s administration of engaging in propaganda. Yet one of the defining features of the current administration has been the public visibility of its projects. Roads are inspected publicly. Contracts are announced publicly. Commissioners regularly brief the media. Government projects are physically verifiable by citizens. Whether one supports the administration or not, infrastructure that exists can be inspected by anyone. Roads, schools, hospitals and investment projects cannot simply be manufactured on social media.
One of the strongest accusations in Aguoru’s letter concerns an alleged ₦927 million monthly feeding expenditure. Yet nowhere does he provide documentary evidence proving that Governor Alex Otti personally spends such an amount on feeding in his private residence.
Serious allegations require verifiable evidence, not political assertions. Budgetary expenditure classifications are often broader than simplistic interpretations suggest, and without official documentation supporting the specific allegation as framed, the claim remains an assertion rather than an established fact.
The issue of NYSC allowances equally deserves scrutiny, but it should be approached honestly. Administrative delays and implementation bottlenecks are not unique to Abia. Citizens are entitled to expect government to fulfil its commitments, but reducing every implementation challenge to deliberate deception oversimplifies governance and substitutes political theatre for objective analysis.
Equally misleading is Aguoru’s attempt to portray pension challenges as though they originated under Governor Otti. Abia’s pension liabilities accumulated over many years. Billions of naira in unpaid pensions and gratuities were inherited from previous administrations. Any honest assessment must acknowledge that inherited obligations cannot disappear overnight. The appropriate question is whether measurable progress is being made in addressing those liabilities, not whether they suddenly appeared after the swearing in of Governor Alex Otti in May 2023. More significantly, Aguoru’s intervention deliberately disconnects today’s challenges from yesterday’s decisions. History, however, does not permit such selective memory.
Abians remember an era characterised by prolonged salary arrears, unpaid pensions, decaying schools, neglected hospitals, impassable roads, environmental degradation, mounting debt and declining investor confidence. Those conditions did not emerge under Governor Alex Otti. They were the product of years of governance failures that left the state struggling with enormous structural and financial burdens.
That historical reality cannot simply be edited out because it is politically inconvenient. The credibility of any political spokesman depends not merely on the criticisms he offers today but on the consistency of his voice over time. If Aguoru truly believes workers deserve dignity, were the same standards applied when previous administrations struggled to pay salaries? Were equally forceful letters written when pensioners repeatedly protested? Were similar accusations levelled against those who presided over years of institutional decay?
If the answer is no, then the current outrage appears less like principled advocacy and more like partisan expediency.
Every administration deserves scrutiny, including Governor Alex Otti’s. Workers deserve fair wages. Pensioners deserve prompt payment. Government promises should be fulfilled, and public officials should always remain accountable. Those are legitimate expectations in any democracy.
However, criticism derives its moral authority from honesty, consistency and historical balance. Uche Aguoru’s open letter falls short because it attempts to erase the context that produced many of the challenges confronting Abia today. It condemns present difficulties while remaining conspicuously silent about the years of governance failures that laid their foundation.
Abians are politically mature enough to distinguish between genuine advocacy and selective outrage. They remember where the state was, they can evaluate where it is today, and they will ultimately judge every administration not by partisan press statements or emotionally charged rhetoric, but by facts, performance, consistency and the verdict of history.