03/04/2026
EDITORIAL: You Cannot Threaten Away Questions About Public Money, A Threat Is In Fact Not A Refutation.
© Inside Modakeke
There is a familiar pattern in Nigerian public life, when serious questions are asked about public funds, the first response is rarely transparency. It is an outrage, it is a denial, and, too often, it is a threat. To be truthful, public officials who dispute a newspaper report are entitled to respond, they are just not entitled to replace evidence with outrage, or substitute pressure for proof. This is the heart of the matter in the statement credited to Hon. Kayode Sowade over our report on the alleged non-disbursement of funds to the Ife East Area Office, Modakeke.
READ: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18E8MLgJzJ/
To be clear, we didn't get a wind of any rejoinder or rebuttal that was released to the public almost forty hours after our publication, and it wasn't sent to us through our staff or available channels. Our correspondent, through the official channel, reached out to all parties mentioned, for a follow-up report, but requests were declined. That's not the crux of this edition of our editorial.
Journalism is not invalidated because a powerful man is displeased by it. Section 36 of the 1999 constitution (as amended) guarantees that disputes over civil rights are to be resolved by law and through fair hearing, not by media ultimatums or intimidation dressed up as outrage. No public official is above scrutiny, and no amount of political loyalty can substitute for financial transparency. Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees the freedom to receive and impart information. That provision was not written for comfort journalism. It exists precisely for moments like this, when questions are inconvenient, when power is uneasy, and when the public deserves answers.
Hon. Sowade's statement is notable not so much for what it says, but for what it avoids. While we didn't at any point said that he was "directly" responsible for the withholding of the funds, we were express about all. Instead of confronting the substance of the allegations surrounding the non-disbursement of funds to the Ife East Area Office, Modakeke, what the public was served was a cocktail of indignation, political chest-thumping, and a conveniently timed ultimatum that expired almost as soon as it was announced. That is not accountability, that is theatre.
He denies sending a petition, he complains about the timing of contact, he proclaims party unity, he made a declaration of personal innocence, but he does not answer the central public-interest questions raised by the report: Is the Area Office owed money? If so, how much? What is the exact status of the disbursement? Who has custody of the relevant records? What projects have been stalled, and why? On the core issue of public finance, the statement we read online offers indignation where the public deserves documentation. A simple, verifiable answer backed by records would do.
Instead, the statement offers a curious escape route, "I have no knowledge." That is not a rebuttal, it is a distancing tactic. Public accountability isn't defeated by personal detachment. If funds were withheld, the public wants to know who knew, who acted, and who benefitted, not who claims ignorance.
That distinction matters. Under Nigeria’s Freedom of Information Act, records held by public institutions are not private political property. The law gives the public a right to request records and information from public institutions, requires a response within seven days subject to lawful exemptions, and treats unjustified refusal as reviewable in court. The Act also defines public institutions broadly to include executive bodies, agencies, corporations established by law, and even entities utilising public funds or performing public functions.
If the allegations are false, the cleanest rebuttal is not a theatrical deadline, it is a paper trail. However, a simple read-through of our publication shows "allegedly/reportedly".
The statement also contains a troubling contradiction in tone and timing. It purports to demand a retraction and apology by a deadline that, by all indications available to us, had already expired by the time the statement itself surfaced. That is not serious pre-litigation engagement; it is performative brinkmanship. A genuine complainant who seeks correction ordinarily does two simple things: serve the complaint promptly and set out specific inaccuracies capable of verification. What we have instead is a broad denunciation of motive, a defence of political personalities, and an after-the-fact warning. In matters of public finance, silence on facts is louder than denials. Even on its own terms, the rebuttal leaves obvious gaps.
First, the statement tries to collapse a public-interest report into an attack on a political party, a minister, and his own reputation. But allegations about missing or withheld local government funds are not answered by saying the APC is united or that a leader is respected. Political solidarity is not an accounting record.
Second, the complaint about contact timing, even if accepted at face value, is not itself proof of falsity. At most, it raises a process question, and process questions are curable with a follow-up, clarification, or expanded right of reply. They do not erase the underlying issue. In defamation law, courts look beyond emotion and ask whether the claimant can establish the essentials of the complaint. Recent Nigerian appellate reporting on defamation has reiterated that a plaintiff must establish publication, reference to the plaintiff, defamatory meaning, publication to third parties, falsity or inaccuracy, and the absence of lawful justification. Mere offence is not even enough.
Third, the statement is selective. It denies authorship of a petition and denies knowledge of withholding, but it does not confront the specific surrounding facts that any rigorous rebuttal should address the alleged revenue-sharing framework, the dates of the last payment, the total sum due, the status of planned road grading and security procurement, and the reasons those projects have not been implemented if indeed funds were not withheld. Silence on specifics is not exoneration. What the public has received is an attempt to shift the conversation from "where is the money?" to "Why was I mentioned?" That is not how accountability works.
Fourth, the statement carries the familiar undertone of warning without substance. We note the reference to “appropriate legal channels.” That is, of course, the right of every citizen. But legal redress is not a magic phrase to shut down scrutiny, nor should cyber-related laws be waved about carelessly to chill reporting on public finance. Nigeria’s Cybercrimes law was amended in 2024, amid continuing scrutiny of how online speech is regulated; it is not a catch-all shield for public officials against public-interest journalism. The wiser judicial view has long been that public office comes with scrutiny; as the Court of Appeal memorably warned in Arthur Nwankwo v. The State, those in sensitive positions must develop 'thick skin.'
The INSIDE MODAKEKE is unperturbed. We do not fear denials; we examine them. We do not fear threats of lawful action; we welcome lawful processes over whispered pressure. We claim no immunity beyond the law. The press is not above scrutiny; but by the same token, public officials are not above accountability either. We do not fear public rebuttal; indeed, we insist on it. What we reject is the culture in which officials answer questions about public money with political sermons and veiled menace. Threats do not intimidate serious journalism, they expose discomfort.
The proper response now is not panic, nor retreat, it is transparency. If those named in the report believe the publication is inaccurate, let them release the relevant financial records. Let them state, in verifiable terms, whether allocations due to the Area Office were paid, when they were paid, how much was paid, under what formula, and why there is public confusion over the matter. Let them provide documentary proof of project disbursements, approvals, transfers, memos, minutes, and remittance schedules. That is how serious public controversies are resolved in a democracy.
And if public institutions refuse access to relevant records, the law already provides a path. The Freedom of Information Act not only gives applicants the right to seek those records; it also allows court review of refusals and penalises wrongful denial.
We therefore stand by a principle larger than any single story, questions about public funds must never be treated as an act of hostility. They are the lifeblood of accountability.
The answer to scrutiny is evidence, the answer to investigation is disclosure, and the answer to journalism is not intimidation, but truth.
