A Call For Equity And Autonomy In Descision Making Of The Ikang Ita Bloc In Bakassi LGA..

A Call For Equity And Autonomy In Descision Making Of The Ikang Ita Bloc In Bakassi LGA..

He who comes to equity must come with clean hands. I have read the publication titled “Equity, Justice and Fairness: Why Ikang Central Deserves the Chapter Chairmanship of APC” and it is necessary to respond plainly and directly.

Equity is not sustained by selective history. Justice is not defended by convenient omissions. And fairness cannot be preached where there is visible and longstanding imbalance.

Yes, Bakassi Local Government was redefined after the ceding of the Bakassi Peninsula to the Republic of Cameroon. Yes, zoning was introduced to promote harmony among the three major upland zones — Ikang North, Ikang South, and Ikang Central. But zoning was never intended to dilute the collective bargaining strength of the upland or subject its internal decisions to external determination.

A fundamental question must be asked: Why should the riverine bloc decide for the upland? Have we ever presumed to determine zoning arrangements for them? Have we dictated how they rotate their opportunities within their own axis? Mutual respect demands reciprocity. What we have not done to others should not be done to us.

The Ikang Ita people must retain the exclusive right to decide our zoning by ourselves — free from pressure, influence, or orchestration from outside the upland bloc. Autonomy is not rebellion; it is dignity.

The argument that Ikang Central has never produced a Chapter Chairman may be factually convenient, but it deliberately ignores the present political reality. Today, Ikang Central already holds a disproportionate number of critical appointments across state and local government structures. Governance is not measured only by elective titles; influence and power are exercised through appointments, strategic offices, and access to decision-making platforms. When one zone holds the Commissioner, the State Security Adviser (South), the Vice Chairman of Council, multiple state appointees, key supervisory positions at the local government, and other influential roles, it cannot convincingly present itself as politically marginalized.

It is also important to remind ourselves that when it was the turn of the upland axis to produce the Council Chairman, that opportunity was conceded in the interest of unity. That sacrifice was made in good faith. Today, the same bloc is told to remain silent in the face of continued marginalization. That is neither fairness nor justice.

It is also important to ask you directly, Effiom Effiong Esq.: Did you not once vie for the Council Chairmanship? And was it not within your legitimate right to do so because, at that time, it was the turn of the upland bloc? You exercised that right without apology — and rightly so. That moment affirmed that zoning exists to protect collective interest and opportunity.

If it was proper for the upland bloc to assert its turn for the Council Chairmanship in the past, then it is equally proper for us now to insist on our exclusive right to decide our zoning by ourselves, and that what we decide internally should be respected and upheld — without interference from any external interest.

For nearly three decades, the upland bloc has had minimal presence in sustained executive authority. That is a political reality. A Chapter Chairmanship, while important, does not automatically correct that imbalance. Symbolic inclusion must not be mistaken for structural equity.

This is not opposition to Ikang Central. It is not hostility toward any zone. It is a principled insistence that justice must be comprehensive. The upland bloc must not celebrate partial accommodation while fundamental disparities remain unaddressed.

True leadership from within the upland requires the courage to ask uncomfortable questions — not just of others, but of ourselves. It requires defending the long-term strategic interest of our people, even when it is inconvenient.

If we truly believe in equity, then let it be balanced, reciprocal, and respectful of the upland’s autonomy. Let fairness prevail — not selectively, but wholly.