By Chinazaekpere Chinwendu,
September 19, 2026 —
Concerned constituents and supporters of the Member representing Umuahia North (Ohuhu) State Constituency in the Abia State House of Assembly, Hon. Barr. Anderson Kelechi Akaliro, have dismissed recent allegations questioning his legislative performance and constituency representation, describing the claims as misleading and unsupported by verifiable facts.
In a statement issued in response to the criticisms, the group said it was necessary to set the records straight in the interest of the people of Ohuhu and the wider public, stressing that political accountability should be anchored on facts, legislative records and demonstrable outcomes rather than personal attacks or political rhetoric.
The group particularly took exception to the suggestion that Akaliro had not made meaningful contributions to lawmaking because some of the bills or motions associated with him had not immediately culminated in enacted laws.
According to the group, such an argument betrays a misunderstanding of the legislative process, which involves several stages before a bill can become law.
It explained that a bill may undergo first reading, second reading, committee consideration, public hearing, report stage, consideration by the Committee of the Whole and third reading, before proceeding to the executive for assent where applicable.
The statement further noted that motions and matters of urgent public importance are equally subject to parliamentary procedures and may be referred to relevant committees for further consideration and action.
The group maintained that the fact that a bill remains at committee stage or another stage of consideration should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of legislative failure on the part of its sponsor.
It cited public reports on the activities of the Abia State House of Assembly, noting that the Speaker disclosed in June 2026 that the Assembly had considered 75 bills within the first three years of the 8th Assembly, with 38 of them passed.
It added that several legislative proposals were still undergoing committee consideration and other parliamentary processes in July 2026, while some matters had been deferred for further scrutiny.
The supporters therefore argued that legislative effectiveness should be assessed within the context of the established parliamentary process, rather than solely by whether a sponsored bill has already become law.
They also pointed to Akaliro's participation in legislative proceedings, including his raising of matters of urgent public importance concerning issues affecting his constituents, as evidence of his engagement with issues confronting the people of Ohuhu.
On the question of constituency development, the group urged critics to look beyond social media exchanges and examine the physical projects and interventions associated with representation in Ohuhu.
It identified the High Court project, Civil Defence Headquarters and Umuda Market, among others, as projects being pointed to within the constituency, urging residents to assess such interventions based on their existence, progress and impact.
The group argued that the more productive question should not be whether there is any dividend of democracy in Ohuhu, but rather what has been delivered, what remains ongoing, what is at various stages of completion and what additional interventions are required.
It stressed that these questions are legitimate and that elected representatives should be prepared to provide answers to them.
According to the statement, accountability remains an essential component of democratic representation, but such accountability must be pursued through evidence-based scrutiny capable of helping to identify gaps and improve governance.
The group also addressed the controversy surrounding a bus project, describing attempts to transform the matter into a political scandal as unnecessary.
It noted that Akaliro and the other political actors being referenced are members of the Labour Party, questioning the rationale for turning an intervention connected to the same political family into an avenue for political confrontation.
The supporters argued that public development should not be reduced to a contest over political ownership, stressing that what matters is whether the people benefit from a project.
They drew an analogy between a building initiated by one person and completed by another, arguing that the completion does not erase the contribution of the person who started it.
The group similarly maintained that where an administration or political actor initiates an intervention and another completes it, the ultimate beneficiaries should be the people, rather than political actors competing over recognition.
The statement also challenged Akaliro's critics to broaden the conversation and explain what their own political platforms and governments have delivered to the people, rather than focusing exclusively on attacking an individual legislator.
It urged political actors to direct public debate towards issues that directly affect the welfare of citizens, including food prices, transportation, employment, infrastructure, security, electricity, education and healthcare.
The group observed that rising petrol prices and transportation costs have placed considerable pressure on households in recent years, while noting the introduction of electric buses by the Abia State Government as part of its public transportation initiatives.
It said that irrespective of political affiliation or opinion about the policy, the intervention could be subjected to objective debate based on its implementation, accessibility and impact on residents.
The supporters reiterated that Akaliro, like every elected representative, should be subjected to scrutiny and held accountable for his responsibilities.
However, they insisted that such scrutiny must be supported by evidence.
They challenged critics to provide specific answers to questions concerning which bills Akaliro allegedly failed to sponsor, which motions he allegedly failed to present, which constituency intervention he abandoned, which project reportedly claimed for Ohuhu does not exist and which legislative procedure he allegedly violated.
The group maintained that concrete evidence would provide a legitimate basis for public debate, while insults and political rhetoric could not substitute for verifiable facts.
In their concluding remarks, the supporters said Ohuhu deserved constructive political engagement rather than personal attacks, insisting that Akaliro's performance should be assessed through his legislative activities, constituency interventions, representation and verifiable development outcomes.
They maintained that the people of Ohuhu were capable of assessing projects and following legislative proceedings for themselves, adding that residents could distinguish between legitimate criticism and what they described as political propaganda.
The group nevertheless acknowledged that where shortcomings exist, they should be identified and addressed, just as achievements should be acknowledged when they are established.
It called for a political culture centred on service, accountability and development, rather than misinformation, personal attacks and unnecessary political grandstanding.
The statement was signed by Concerned Constituents and Supporters of Hon. Anderson Kelechi Akaliro, Member Representing Umuahia North (Ohuhu) State Constituency, Abia State House of Assembly.