On Gov Kefas’ speech on SUMTV

I studied and listened to Governor Agbu Kefas’ recent address, and I found that his psychological disposition and world outlook, as reflected in his speech, betray a fundamental lack of understanding of governance from the standpoint of the constitutional and legal basis of government. The very essence of constitutional democracy is that there must be […]

I studied and listened to Governor Agbu Kefas’ recent address, and I found that his psychological disposition and world outlook, as reflected in his speech, betray a fundamental lack of understanding of governance from the standpoint of the constitutional and legal basis of government. The very essence of constitutional democracy is that there must be no vacuum in executive authority, no “ungoverned space” in the chain of command. This is not a matter of personal compassion, religious persuasion, or emotional discretion; it is a constitutional imperative. The Nigerian Constitution makes provision for a deputy governor not as a symbolic appendage but as a critical part of the executive machinery, precisely to ensure continuity, stability, and lawful delegation of authority when the governor is absent or incapacitated. The governor’s failure to address this gap beyond sentimental appeals shows a troubling ignorance or disregard for this fundamental principle.

The governor’s broadcast is hollow, evasive, and lacking in depth. It skirts around the legal necessity of addressing the deputy governor’s prolonged absence and instead substitutes constitutional reasoning with moralistic platitudes. Governance is not merely about “standing by one another” in the abstract sense; it is about ensuring that the machinery of state continues to function without interruption. His attempt to cast the matter as a purely human issue, while ignoring the legal consequences of leaving the office in limbo, suggests he is prioritising personal sentiment over constitutional responsibility. This is not only legally questionable but also dangerous for the stability of governance in Taraba State.

Socially and politically, the address demonstrates emotional and communicative unintelligence. Rather than engaging with citizens’ legitimate concerns about transparency and accountability, the governor takes a defensive stance and lashes out at critics. The governor’s rhetorical question about whether Tarabans expect him to “sit in this village counting visitors” is not only flippant but also deeply insulting to the electorate. Public office is not a favour to the people; it is a trust, and the governor is an employee of the citizens. Such dismissive language shows a lack of respect for the public’s right to demand explanations for his conduct in office. In governance, perception matters.

The governor must direct legal and moral questions: What tangible benefits have accrued to Taraba State from expenditures on foreign trips? How much exactly was spent on TARAVEST, and what measurable value has it delivered to the people? These are straightforward questions requiring transparent answers, not diversionary rhetoric.

Governance requires a contrite spirit and readiness to listen.

The governor must realise that he is not above the law and that public accountability is not optional. Tarabans are within their rights to demand explanations, transparency, and constitutional fidelity. The time for sentimental speeches is over; the time for lawful action.

 

Tanko Kyen-Emoh Danjuma Ambi-Usi Jr. Esq wrote from Awka, Anambra State