The question needs to be asked plainly, without sentiment, without selective memory and without rewriting history to suit the politics of today: between Owerri and Okigwe zones, who betrayed who first? For years, some voices from Okigwe Zone have accused Owerri of betraying Okigwe in 2011 by supporting Rochas Okorocha against Governor Ikedi Ohakim, an Okigwe son who was seeking a second term. The argument is that Okigwe had taken its turn after Orlu and should have been allowed to complete the cycle before power moved to Owerri. That argument deserves to be heard. But if we are going to reopen the political history of Imo State, then we must open all the pages, not just the page that favours one side.
Let us go back to 2007. On April 14 that year, Imo went to the polls to elect a governor. Martin Agbaso of APGA, from Owerri Zone, was the major beneficiary of the original voting pattern and subsequently claimed that he had won the election. But INEC led by Maurice Iwu cancelled the governorship election after alleging violence and electoral irregularities in nine of the state’s 27 local government areas. The commission then scheduled another election for April 28. Agbaso went to court, insisting that INEC had no power to cancel the election and that the results ought to have been collated and declared. The courts ultimately did not return the original mandate to him, and Ikedi Ohakim, an Okigwe Zone candidate, emerged from the rescheduled election.
This is where the argument becomes uncomfortable. If Owerri is accused of betraying Okigwe in 2011, what exactly should Owerri call what happened in 2007? The point is not that every Okigwe person was responsible for the cancellation of the election. That would be unfair and intellectually dishonest. Neither should the action of an INEC chairman, Iwu , an Okigwe zone son or electoral officials be converted into a collective crime against an entire senatorial zone. But politically, the 2007 episode cannot simply be erased from the history of the relationship between the two zones. An Owerri candidate’s disputed 2007 electoral victory was interrupted, a fresh election was conducted, and an Okigwe candidate eventually became governor. That is a fact of Imo’s political history.
Then came 2011. Ohakim sought re-election, and Rochas Okorocha of APGA emerged as his principal challenger. Okorocha eventually won with 336,859 votes against Ohakim’s 290,496. The accusation that has survived ever since is that elements within Owerri Zone worked with Okorocha to remove Ohakim, believing that Okorocha would serve one term and hand power to Owerri. Some commentators from Owerri have acknowledged that such political calculations existed, while others have rejected the suggestion that the entire zone acted as one political bloc. Indeed, contemporary results show that Ohakim won substantial support in several local governments in Owerri zone.
But here is the hard truth: if Owerri’s alleged role in 2011 is considered betrayal, then Okigwe cannot demand that 2011 be the beginning of the story. There was a political history before 2011. There was 2007. And before anybody begins to lecture Owerri about political morality, the question must be answered: what happened when an Owerri son was positioned to take power in 2007? Was the cancellation of that election an act of Owerri against Okigwe? No. Was every Okigwe person responsible for it? Certainly not. But did the consequence of that disputed electoral episode ultimately produce an Okigwe governor? Yes. And that consequence is part of the history that cannot be wished away simply because another chapter, four years later, is more convenient to remember.
Therefore, if the present debate is about equity, then equity cannot begin from 2011 because that conveniently places all the blame on Owerri. Equity must begin from the beginning. If the argument is that Okigwe deserves consideration because Ohakim was denied a second term, then Owerri equally has a legitimate historical grievance arising from the disruption of the 2007 electoral process involving Agbaso. If one side insists on counting its injury, the other side must be allowed to count its own. You cannot use selective history to produce a universal principle of justice. The real question, therefore, is not simply whether Owerri betrayed Okigwe in 2011. The real question is whether both zones, at different times, made political choices that damaged the prospects of the other.
And that is why the present moment should not become another war of historical accusations. If Owerri and Okigwe genuinely believe in equity, let the two zones sit down and negotiate from the full history of their relationship, not from the portion that favours one side. Let nobody tell Owerri that it must forget 2007 before it can discuss 2027. And let nobody tell Okigwe that its experience in 2011 does not matter. Both histories matter. But if the question is, “Who betrayed who first?”, then the honest answer is that 2011 was not the beginning of the disagreement. The roots go back to 2007. And if equity is truly the objective, then perhaps the wisest place to begin is not with accusation, but with the history that both sides have spent years trying to remember selectively.
