Samuel Ortom And The Missing N139bn: ‎Accountability Is Not Witch-Hunt

‎The public response issued on behalf of former Benue State Governor, Chief Samuel Ortom, following the submission of the report of the Benue State Income and Expenditure Commission of Inquiry, raises familiar arguments that deserve clarification rather than emotional amplification.

‎At the heart of the matter is a simple question: Should former public office holders be exempted from scrutiny once they leave the office? The answer is clearly no.

‎It is ironic that those who now condemn the investigation as a political witch-hunt were themselves active participants in similar accountability processes while in government.

‎‎During his tenure as Governor, Chief Samuel Ortom constituted the Justice Elizabeth Kpojime Commission of Inquiry to investigate the administration of former Governor, Senator Gabriel Suswam. That commission made its findings and presented its recommendations to Ortom for further action. To date, legal proceedings arising from the probe are ongoing.

‎‎Having embraced the principle of probing a predecessor while in office, it is difficult to understand why the same principle has suddenly become objectionable to Ortom when applied to his administration.

‎‎The attempt by his media handlers to portray the exercise as a diversionary tactic designed to distract from governance challenges is equally unconvincing. Accountability and governance are not mutually exclusive responsibilities.

‎Governor Alia is simultaneously pursuing developmental objectives while ensuring that public resources entrusted to previous administrations are also properly accounted for. Transparency and accountability are essential components of good governance, not distractions from it.

‎‎The argument that previous panels established by the present administration were challenged in court and subsequently dissolved does not invalidate the legitimacy of investigating past government activities. In a constitutional democracy, disputes over the legality of commissions of inquiry do not automatically extinguish the government’s authority to seek answers regarding the management of public resources. Ultimately, the courts will determine whether the commission was properly constituted and whether its findings meet legal standards.

‎It is also important to note that merely describing an investigation as a witch-hunt does not make it one. Such allegations are common whenever former public officials face scrutiny. The real test lies elsewhere: Was the evidence properly examined? Were conclusions supported by verifiable facts? These are the questions that should concern the public. Political rhetoric cannot be substituted for due process.

‎The Ortom camp appears to suggest that any investigation involving a former governor is automatically tainted by political motives. Such a position is neither sustainable nor democratic. If every probe is dismissed simply because politics exists, then no public official would ever be held accountable. Democratic governance requires that those entrusted with public resources remain answerable for their stewardship, regardless of who they are.