The recurring attempt to compare a legislator with a sitting governor is, by every objective standard, an exaggerated and misplaced sentiment. Such a comparison simply does not make sense, and many within the political space understand clearly that there is, in fact, nothing to compare.
What appears to have fueled this narrative is not logic or performance assessment, but the neglect of some vital and deserving party loyalists. This neglect has understandably clouded judgment, as individuals who feel excluded from the benefits of governance often seize any available discourse to express their pain. When a few are perceived to be “sharing the cake” while long-standing loyalists are ignored, dissatisfaction is inevitable.
However, when subjected to measurable and verifiable governance indices, the comparison collapses entirely. In terms of infrastructure, the record is extensive and concrete. Projects such as the Zone 8 Crusher Road, Obangede-Ihima Road, Ajaokuta-Ebiya Road, the ongoing construction of Oganenigu roads, widespread internal road projects, and the revival of the Confluence Rice Mill clearly demonstrate a scale of intervention that cannot reasonably be equated with legislative duties.
In education, the disparity is even more pronounced. Ongoing projects at Kabba University, developments at CUSTECH and Co-Health in Idah, the provision of student bursaries, full and timely payment of salaries to employees, Free WAEC payment to all public schools across the State and the settlement of leave benefits collectively underscore a level of responsibility and impact far beyond the scope of a legislator.
Healthcare further reinforces this distinction. The revitalization of primary healthcare centres across the state, the expansion of health insurance coverage, significant improvements in maternal and child health services, and the approval of hazard allowances for doctors all reflect executive authority and statewide reach that cannot be matched at the legislative level.
On security, often described as the most daunting challenge, the difference is stark. Investments in community safety through the provision of over 150 patrol vehicles and security equipment, the co-option of local vigilantes into civil service, and the establishment of forward operation bases demonstrate an approach and capacity that no legislator can realistically be compared to.
Human capacity development offers another clear example. Initiatives such as Nigeria Korea Institute Skills empowerment, Adolescent empowerment (AGILE), and L-PRESS have empowered hundreds of individuals. Additionally, the engagement of over 5,000 appointees has positively impacted employability across the state. Ironically, those who have not benefited often criticize these efforts as wasteful, while similar actions by legislator such as employing far fewer individuals on minimal stipend are praised and never subjected to the same scrutiny. Notably, appointees under Governor Ododo’s administration are not owed while Sen. Natasha is alleged to have owned some of her aids, a point that further weakens any attempted comparison.
Agriculture transportation, and road safety also tell the same story. Mechanization efforts, distribution of farm inputs, agricultural financing initiatives, and the provision of tow trucks, power bikes, Hilux vehicles, Siena buses, and other equipment to reduce traffic accidents and improve mobility all fall squarely within executive governance and remain incomparable with a meager legislative interventions.
These indices form the only objective standard upon which a governor can be assessed. This does not suggest that the governor is without imperfections, but it clearly establishes that even a governor perceived as underperforming cannot reasonably be compared with a legislator. Such a comparison could either be an apples-and-oranges or elephant to squirrel comparison.
Beyond performance metrics, however, lies the real and more troubling issue: systemic neglect. A deep sense of sadness and frustration persists among young, vibrant party members and loyalists who contributed immensely, physically, financially, and intellectually to the party’s growth and electoral victories, yet remain repeatedly overlooked.
Some of these individuals personally financed campaign activities, some travelled long distances at their own expense to mobilize supporters, and some consistently write to defend the party before, during, and after elections by countering damaging opposition narratives that could have had serious national repercussions. Ignoring such contributions while appointments, contracts, and benefits disproportionately favor family members and close associates reflects a deeply flawed reward system.
Even more troubling is the tendency to vilify those who voice genuine grievances, as though speaking out were an act of disloyalty. Ironically, those expected to speak for the neglected often end up advocating only for themselves and their relatives, while loudly condemning others and lecturing them on loyalty without acknowledging the neglect they have endured.
This reality explains why many of the ongoing comparisons are fundamentally misplaced. The issue is not comparison; it is neglect. If left unaddressed, it will inevitably resurface at the polls. In the fate of this are those in this category of neglects who remain silent. They are often more numerous and more dangerous than those who openly express dissatisfaction.
Relying on last-minute financial inducements to placate aggrieved loyalists is a dangerous illusion. Once trust has been eroded over time, money loses its influence. It is often diverted or wasted when genuine grassroots work should be prioritized, repeating the very mistakes that have previously cost the party dearly.
Until the underlying issue of systemic neglect is confronted honestly and corrected decisively, misplaced comparisons will continue to surface, distracting from both governance achievements and the urgent need for internal justice and inclusion.
– Prince Suleiman Adinoyi writes from Okene.
