Why Burutu must reject mischief disguised as accountability against Dr. Julius Takeme - Ebikabowei

By: Ebikabowei Kedikumo


The recent allegations made by some aggrieved former PDP chairmanship aspirants against the Chairman of Burutu Local Government Chairman, Hon. Julius Takeme, should be treated with caution by all fair-minded members of the public. In every democratic society, citizens, party members, stakeholders, and political actors have the right to ask questions and demand accountability from those in public office. However, such demands must be made with responsibility, honesty, maturity, and clear evidence. It is one thing to call for transparency; it is another thing entirely to make heavy allegations of financial misconduct without placing verifiable documents before the public. To accuse a sitting council chairman of misappropriating billions of naira without presenting audit reports, bank statements, approved budgets, contract papers, payment vouchers, project valuation records, council resolutions, or any credible documentary evidence is unfair, dangerous, and politically suspicious. Public criticism should not be reduced to emotional propaganda, character assassination, or political blackmail, especially when the peace, image, and stability of Burutu Local Government Area are at stake.

Furthermore, the timing of these allegations raises serious questions about the true motive behind them. If the alleged financial recklessness had truly been going on since the beginning of the administration, why did the aggrieved aspirants remain silent for about two years? Why did they not raise the alarm earlier through the proper party channels, the legislative arm of the council, anti-corruption agencies, traditional institutions, or other lawful platforms? Why are these accusations only coming strongly now, after political interests appear to have shifted and some persons now feel excluded from the centre of influence? These questions are important because timing often reveals motive. A genuine fight for public accountability is usually consistent, timely, and evidence-based. However, a delayed outburst that comes after political disappointment may easily be seen as bitterness, not patriotism. The people of Burutu are politically conscious enough to know the difference between sincere public concern and a struggle for relevance by those who may still be nursing the pain of not getting the party ticket.

In addition, the allegation that about three billion naira was spent on a secretariat complex which is allegedly still at DPC level is too serious to be treated as ordinary political talk. Such a claim cannot stand on rumours, anger, or public noise. Those making the allegation have a duty to show the people the contract documents, bill of quantities, approved project cost, payment schedule, valuation certificates, photographs, inspection reports, and official records proving that such an amount was released and mismanaged. In public finance, figures must not be thrown around carelessly to excite the public or damage a person’s name. A project may have different phases, approvals, mobilisation stages, design costs, site preparation, foundation works, material procurement, and other technical processes which ordinary political commentators may not fully understand. Therefore, before anyone concludes that money has been stolen, the proper thing is to verify the contract records and project documents. In law, morality, and responsible politics, he who alleges must prove. Until the accusers produce convincing evidence, their claim remains speculative, weak, and self-serving.

Moreover, the allegation that the council operates without a budget is difficult to accept because it does not agree with how a local government administration functions. No serious local government council can pay salaries, run offices, maintain essential services, support security, carry out health programmes, attend to education matters, award contracts, or execute capital projects without some form of budgetary and administrative framework. Local government funds do not move in a vacuum. They pass through official channels, financial officers, administrative procedures, approvals, and statutory checks. If the same aggrieved aspirants admit that a secretariat complex is under construction, then it is illogical for them to claim at the same time that there is no budget at all. A capital project of that nature cannot simply appear from nowhere without planning, approval, and financial provision. Their argument therefore contradicts itself. It appears to be designed more to create suspicion in the minds of the public than to establish a clear and provable fact.

Similarly, the claim that the chairman deliberately hid information about revenues received by the council is also weak unless supported by proper records. Statutory allocations to local governments are not private funds hidden in the personal pocket of a council chairman. Such funds are traceable through official government channels, allocation records, finance departments, bank processes, and statutory financial systems. If the aggrieved aspirants claim to know the exact sums received by the council, then they should also be able to provide reliable documents showing how those sums were allegedly misapplied. It is not reasonable to claim detailed knowledge of inflow while failing to provide proof of unlawful outflow. Responsible public debate requires facts, not guesswork. If they have official records, they should publish them or submit them to the appropriate authorities. If they do not have such records, then they should stop misleading the public with figures that have not been properly verified. Burutu people deserve truth, not political drama.

It must also be stated clearly that the constant description of Hon. Julius Takeme as an “imposed chairman” exposes the real root of the grievance. This language suggests that the issue may not truly be about financial accountability, but about political disappointment. In every political contest, many people may show interest, but only one person can emerge as candidate and eventually as chairman. Those who did not succeed may feel hurt, but politics requires maturity, patience, and discipline. A person who loses today may win tomorrow. Some of these aggrieved aspirants may become chairmen, lawmakers, commissioners, or political leaders in the future. For that reason, they should not destroy the same system they hope to lead one day. They should wait for their turn, continue to build goodwill, and avoid the crab mentality of pulling down another person simply because they are not the ones occupying the seat. Power is rotational, and leadership is a matter of time, trust, and destiny. It is therefore unwise for any aspiring leader to build his future on bitterness, public disorder, or reckless attacks against a sitting chairman.

Besides, the aggrieved aspirants must understand that opposition, even within the same party, should be constructive and patriotic. Constructive criticism helps government to improve, but destructive criticism weakens institutions and creates unnecessary tension. If their intention is truly to help Burutu, they should engage the chairman through proper channels, request clarification respectfully, approach the legislative arm of the council, meet party elders, or petition relevant authorities with evidence. What they should not do is heat up the polity with unverified claims and then present themselves as defenders of the people. Burutu Local Government Area needs development, peace, unity, and responsible political conduct. The people need roads, schools, health centres, employment opportunities, security support, riverine development, and better public services. These goals cannot be achieved in an atmosphere of constant political bitterness and personal attacks. No serious society grows when its leaders and aspiring leaders spend more time dragging one another down than working together for the public good.

It is equally important to remind the public that Hon. Takeme, like every other public office holder, should be judged by facts, lawful processes, and verifiable records, not by the anger of disappointed political actors. If there are genuine questions about projects, budgets, or council income, such questions should be answered through proper administrative and legal procedures. However, it is wrong to convict a man in the court of public opinion without evidence. The principle of fairness demands that accusations must be proved, not merely repeated. Those who are loudest in accusation must also be ready to submit themselves to the same standard when their own time comes. If any of the aggrieved aspirants becomes chairman tomorrow, would they want to be judged by rumours, bitterness, and political emotion, or by evidence and due process? What they would not want others to do to them, they should not do to Hon. Takeme today.

The people of Burutu should not be misled by political noise dressed as public interest. The call for accountability is good, but it must not become a weapon for personal revenge. The aggrieved aspirants weaken their own case when they accuse the chairman of corruption on one hand and, on the other hand, seek political engagement, recognition, or intervention from leaders. This creates the impression that the real aim may not be justice, but settlement, attention, or relevance. If they truly have evidence of financial crime, they should present it to the proper authorities and allow due process to take its course. If they have no evidence, they should stop spreading suspicion and allow the chairman to concentrate on governance. Burutu deserves peace, development, and responsible leadership. Hon. Takeme should therefore be assessed on the basis of records, facts, and lawful scrutiny, not on the anger of those whose actions appear politically motivated, self-serving, and harmful to the unity of the local government.