By Ofonime Honesty
A former member and spokesman of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. Eseme Eyiboh, has urged the Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly to review its classification of Esit Eket Local Government Area as an underperforming council.
In an open letter to the Speaker, Rt. Hon. Udeme Otong, dated October 19, 2026, Eyiboh said the report of the House Committee on Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, chaired by Rt. Hon. Mfon Idung, was bereft of clear methodology and verifiable evidence.
He insisted that the committee did not state the criteria, benchmarks or financial periods on which its conclusions rested, adding that oversight without evidence risks becoming a mere “assertion of authority.”
The committee had listed Esit Eket among councils showing unsatisfactory project execution and poor utilisation of statutory allocations, following its tour of all 31 local government areas between June 26 and July 17.
Writing as a son of Esit Eket and a stakeholder in its development, Eyiboh made it clear that he supports oversight “without reservation,” describing it as “indispensable to democratic accountability, prudent public expenditure and the protection of the public interest.”
He also praised the committee for touring all 31 councils but insisted that “the number of locations visited cannot, by itself, establish the reliability, depth or comprehensiveness of the resulting assessment.”
His words: “Oversight must be rigorous enough to expose failure, fair enough to recognise progress and transparent enough to command public confidence and trust.”
The All Progressives Congress (APC) chieftain also faulted the absence of a framework for stakeholder participation, noting that residents, traditional institutions, community development associations, professional groups and civil society organisations hold knowledge that could sharpen any assessment.
“Without a transparent methodology, citizens are left to accept conclusions without understanding the standards by which their local government has been judged,” he wrote.
He listed projects and programmes executed across infrastructure, housing, markets, education, healthcare, youth empowerment, agriculture, disability inclusion and community administration.
They include the construction of Urua Ayu Market, which he clarified was built, not merely renovated; the separate renovation of Uquo Market; three compassionate homes, one in each of the council’s three zones; the renovation of the Council Hall; landscaping of the secretariat covering about 6,700 square metres; and the equipping of an ICT centre with 35 desktop computers, to be judged on utilisation and digital capacity, not procurement alone.
On livelihoods, he cited 10 motorcycles issued to commercial operators whose machines had become unserviceable, four tricycles for farmers transporting produce, and 10 wheelchairs for persons living with disabilities, all of which, he said, should be assessed through beneficiary registers, procurement records and evidence of use.
In education, he listed ₦500,000 awards to each of four law students and a best graduating student of Heritage Polytechnic, totalling ₦2.5 million; assistance of about ₦65 million to more than 3,000 pupils; writing materials for all 16 primary schools, including 10,000 exercise books and 150 cartons of chalk; and a holiday technology programme for 130 students, with laptops for the five best-performing participants.
On youth empowerment, he said six young people completed a six-month training at DASAK at ₦1 million per participant, with each later receiving ₦500,000 in support — ₦6 million for training and ₦3 million in grants, a combined ₦9 million.
He further cited health insurance registration paid for 100 indigenes, noting that “payment for registration and effective access to insured healthcare are not necessarily the same thing,” and more than ₦12 million spent on the treatment of a resident still under medical care, while urging respect for the individual’s privacy.
He also drew attention to committees constituted for media, security watch, hunters, environment, peace and resolution, special advisers and hospital matters, with a reported membership exceeding 167 persons and about ₦8 million expended monthly — expenditure he said must be tested against “mandates, membership, approved costs, activities, payment records and measurable outputs,” and which “should neither be treated automatically as proof of good performance nor dismissed without examination.”
“My argument is not that a list of projects settles the question of performance,” Eyiboh wrote. “It is that no credible judgement on performance should be made without a fair examination of material projects, expenditure records and the public value they generate.” Where the records substantiate the interventions, he added, “the findings should reflect them”; and where weaknesses, cost discrepancies or deficiencies are established, “those should equally be documented and addressed.”
Eyiboh questioned the consistency of the committee’s rankings, saying it was “surprising that a particular local government council whose only major achievement is landscaping of the council secretariat was classified as a performing LGA, while Esit Eket, which undertook a wider area of landscaping, together with numerous other life-touching projects, was said to be underperforming.” He did not name the council.
He argued more broadly that local government is a developmental institution, not merely an administrative structure, and that performance cannot be reduced to “the appearance of administrative premises or the number of visible construction projects,” since “a council may construct buildings while neglecting the welfare of its people.”
He asked the Speaker to facilitate a targeted re-assessment of Esit Eket in light of verifiable projects, financial records and community impact; clarification of the criteria, financial periods and evidential basis used in classifying the councils; verification of material discrepancies through supplementary inspection; structured stakeholder participation in future oversight; a consistent performance framework covering budget execution, project completion, infrastructure quality, service delivery and financial accountability; and clearer reporting that separates verified findings from unresolved questions.
“These proposals are not intended to undermine the committee or diminish the authority of the House of Assembly,” he said. “They are intended to strengthen legislative oversight, improve public administration and ensure that the House’s conclusions command the confidence and trust they deserve.”
He added that he did not seek to shield the council from legitimate criticism, nor presume it had performed satisfactorily in every respect. “Reviewing findings is not an admission of failure,” he wrote. “It is an affirmation that accountability matters more than preserving an untested conclusion.”
The Assembly has yet to respond to the letter.
