The Kogi East Political Summit claims to offer a new strategy for 2027. It calls it a “strategic reset.” It promises a pathway to power in 2031. But the closer you look, the more it unravels. Logic, equity, and realpolitik all come apart under its surface. What the summit presents is not a reset. It is a continuation of old power structures. It is a bargain that rewards elites and leaves ordinary citizens with uncertainty.
At the center of the summit’s resolution is this: Kogi East should support Governor Ahmed Usman Ododo for a second term in 2027. In return, the elites promise, power will return to Kogi East in 2031. On paper, it sounds like a deal. In practice, it is fraught with contradictions. A “reset” implies change. Endorsing an incumbent, someone from the same structure long associated with Yahaya Bello, is not change. It is reinforcement. One cannot credibly promise renewal while backing the system that has repeatedly excluded Kogi East and Kogi West aspirants. Logic collapses at the start.
The summit repeatedly invokes the need for a statewide political agenda. Professor Ilemona Adofu, the keynote speaker, emphasizes that numerical strength alone cannot guarantee victory. He calls for an approach that moves beyond ethnic-based calculations. This is correct. It is also ignored. The communiqué proposes an alliance with Kogi Central alone, while Kogi West is left to a vague, post-2031 “level playing field.” A truly statewide strategy would integrate all three senatorial districts from the beginning. What the summit offers is not strategy. It is a two-zone deal dressed as inclusivity.
Equity, fairness, and social justice appear frequently in the language of the summit. But equity that is conditional, deferred, and selective is not equity. It is managed exclusion. By arranging power rotation as a deal between Kogi East and Central, the summit allows ordinary citizens to be sidelined. History has shown this pattern repeatedly: deferred promises favor incumbents and elites while leaving aspirants and voters with nothing. This summit risks repeating that history.
The summit praises Ododo’s performance, citing development initiatives and handling of security challenges. Yet it ignores a fundamental question: if governance is so effective, why does Kogi East need a negotiated promise instead of competing for power now? Both claims—effective governance and deferred compensation—cannot logically coexist. The article provides no answer. The contradiction is glaring.
The report acknowledges that dislodging an incumbent requires broad alliances. Yet the same logic is applied to justify submission to incumbency. A tool meant to democratize power is repurposed to entrench it. Worse still, the summit proposes establishing committees after endorsing Ododo. In negotiation and politics, leverage comes first. It does not follow surrender. By deferring critical mechanisms and relying on goodwill, the summit puts Kogi East in a weak position. The elites secure access; the people, uncertainty.
Grassroots voices are entirely absent. Elite consensus is presented as popular will. But there is no evidence of ratification from ordinary citizens, youth groups, or local stakeholders. The practical consequences are simple: 2027 is surrendered, 2031 is uncertain, and the people gain nothing tangible. Meanwhile, the elites gain influence, Ododo consolidates power, and the shadow of Yahaya Bello remains over the political landscape.
The Democracy Newsline report claims equity, but practices convenience. It claims statewide strategy, but executes a zonal bargain. It claims realism, but depends on political goodwill. The central, unanswered question is decisive: if power is genuinely meant to return to Kogi East in 2031, why was it not secured—clearly, inclusively, and enforceably—before 2027 was surrendered? Until that question is answered, this is not strategy. It is betrayal—of logic, of equity, and of the people it claims to represent.
There are consequences to this approach. Deferring power without enforceable guarantees is a political trap. It strengthens incumbency, consolidates elite influence, and undermines confidence in democratic processes. It signals to citizens that access and privilege matter more than merit and representation. In practical terms, Kogi East risks repeated marginalization. Kogi West, already sidelined in the communiqué, will likely continue to be treated as secondary. Ordinary citizens, particularly youths and civil society actors, are left out of the decision-making process entirely.
The people of Kogi West, grassroots actors, and civic-minded citizens must actively reject elite bargains masquerading as strategic solutions. They must insist that equity and justice be implemented now, not promised for some distant future. Deferred promises have historically failed. Justice delayed is justice denied. Equity traded for access is betrayal in plain sight.
This op-ed does not accuse individuals. It offers a critical analysis of political logic, strategy, and governance. It examines the contradictions between what is promised and what is delivered. It exposes the gap between rhetoric and practice. And it issues a warning: without inclusive, enforceable, and transparent mechanisms, the 2027–2031 arrangement will serve elites, consolidate incumbency, and disappoint the very people it claims to benefit.
– Yusuf, M.A., PhD
For: Kogi Equity Alliance
