31/07/2026
WHEN POLITICS PUTS ON THE ROBE OF LAND DISPUTE.
There is a certain fascinating creativity in the way some people now manufacture public controversies: take a private land dispute, add a serving lawmaker, sprinkle in election-season anxiety, and suddenly the matter becomes a national emergency requiring public trial by media. One would almost think that the courtrooms have been relocated to social media, while traditional institutions have been converted into spectators. Yet, beneath all the noise, the fundamental question remains: if there is a genuine land transaction dispute involving identifiable individuals, why not present the evidence before the appropriate traditional and legal authorities instead of rushing to publish an accusation that conveniently drags the name of a public office holder into the centre of the storm?
The allegations against Mr. Alphonsus Abang Simon are serious, and precisely because they are serious, they deserve something more substantial than a narrative built primarily around unnamed "reports," allegations, and assertions. If individuals claim they paid ₦300,000, ₦200,000, or another amount for land, the proper questions are simple: Where are the receipts? Where are the agreements? Where are the witnesses? Who actually owned the land? Who authorised the transaction? And, most importantly, what evidence establishes that Hon. Victor Abang personally participated in, authorised, or benefited from any alleged transaction? Public accountability is important, but accountability must be based on facts, not on the convenient principle that the sins, if any - of a relative must automatically become the responsibility of a public office holder.
It is equally curious that the original publication appears to demand that Hon. Victor Abang refund monies allegedly paid to his father, while simultaneously acknowledging that the transactions in question were allegedly conducted by the father. This creates an interesting new principle of accountability: if your father is accused of a transaction, you must pay; if your political opponent's relative is accused, you must investigate. By that logic, family trees may soon become financial liability schedules, and every public official may be required to carry a calculator whenever a distant relative enters into a private transaction.
The claim that Mr. Alphonsus Abang Simon only established connections with Nkanacha because of his son's 2023 election campaign is also challenged by the family's response, which maintains that he has paternal roots in Nkanacha and had longstanding ties to the community. If that position is correct, then the attempt to portray his presence in the community as an electoral strategy collapses under the weight of its own exaggeration. Elections come and go, but family roots do not suddenly appear every four years like campaign posters.
That said, allegations involving land and money should never be dismissed merely because they are politically inconvenient. If the complainants genuinely believe they have been wronged, they deserve a fair hearing and a lawful resolution. But fairness must be available to everyone - including the accused. The complainants should present their documentary evidence and pursue their claims before the Traditional Rulers Council, relevant community authorities, or the appropriate courts. That is where facts are tested, witnesses are heard, and responsibility is properly established - not through sensational publications designed to generate public outrage before the accused has even been given a meaningful opportunity to respond.
The attempt to connect the alleged land dispute directly to Hon. Victor Abang's public office also raises legitimate questions about motive and proportionality. If the Member representing Ikom/Boki Federal Constituency was not the seller, did not receive the alleged payments, and was not a party to the transaction, then the burden remains on those making the allegations to demonstrate precisely what responsibility he bears. A public office holder should certainly be accountable for his official conduct, but he cannot reasonably be expected to inherit every private dispute involving every member of his extended family simply because politics has made his surname more visible.
Perhaps the most responsible path forward is therefore not another round of media warfare. Let the documents speak. Let the traditional institutions mediate. Let the law determine ownership and liability. If money is genuinely owed, let the person legally responsible refund it. If the allegations are unfounded, let that also be established clearly. What should be avoided is the dangerous culture of turning every unresolved private disagreement into political ammunition, especially when the objective appears less about resolving the dispute and more about damaging reputations.
In the final analysis, justice is not achieved by shouting the loudest, publishing the longest statement, or attaching the name of a politician to every controversy involving his relatives. Justice is achieved by evidence, due process, fairness, and accountability. If there is a genuine grievance, let it be pursued with courage and evidence. If there is a genuine wrongdoing, let the responsible person answer for it. But if the entire exercise is merely another attempt to weaponise a private dispute for political advantage, then perhaps the public deserves to know that too.
The message is simple: land disputes belong before competent authorities, not in the theatre of political propaganda. Let the facts be established, let justice prevail, and let everyone - powerful or otherwise, be held accountable strictly for what they have actually done, not for what someone else allegedly did.
--
Omah, Ambrose Muabe
End-time Reportage
