A Reconstruction of Events: The Then ABSU- Vice Chancellorship Tussle and Ugwunagbo’s Stakeholders Position
There is an important historical context to this matter that deserves to be brought to the fore, particularly for those who may not have a full understanding of what transpired during the ABSU vice-chancellorship tussle.
From the accounts available to me, one of Ugwunagbo’s illustrious sons was, at the time, a member of the ABSU Governing Council. He reportedly suggested that Ugwunagbo stakeholders should adopt a strategic political approach to the matter. This recommendation informed the decision to approach our then House member who was then the highest-ranking political office holder from Ugwunagbo, to help lead a delegation to the governor in support of the late Prof. Ngwakwe.
For the avoidance of doubt, my understanding is that the late Prof. Ngwakwe was qualified for the position, just as the candidate from Ukwa was. The issue, therefore, was not necessarily about the academic qualifications of either candidate but about securing the necessary support for the aspiration of our illustrious son.
However, according to the account of events available to me, our then house member declined to lead the proposed delegation, reportedly explaining that he had already pledged his support to the Ukwa candidate. This development necessitated a reconsideration of the stakeholders’ approach.
Consequently, Ugwunagbo stakeholders reportedly resolved to write a formal letter to the governor, appealing for his consideration of the late Prof. Ngwakwe. My understanding is that the stakeholders present endorsed and signed the letter. However, our then House of Assembly member reportedly declined to append his signature, with the explanation that if the late Prof. Ngwakwe wanted his support, he should personally come to meet him so that both parties could reach an understanding.
These details are significant to the historical conversation because they provide context to the decisions reportedly taken by Ugwunagbo stakeholders and the positions adopted by the political actors involved.
They also raise some legitimate questions that deserve clarification:
1. What informed the decision of our then House of Assembly member not to endorse the collective appeal?
2. Did he eventually meet with the late Prof. Ngwakwe, as reportedly suggested?
3. What role, if any, did he subsequently play in advancing the professor’s aspiration?
These questions are particularly relevant given that he was, at the time, our representative in the State House of Assembly, and his endorsement of the letter could have carried considerable political significance.
I believe the most responsible way to approach this conversation is to allow facts, recollections and verifiable records to guide us. Those who participated in the events are in the best position to confirm, clarify or correct any aspect of this account.
History should be reconstructed with honesty, not rewritten to accommodate present-day political interests. Ugwunagbo deserves a complete and balanced account of what transpired.
