There is a difference between defending a government and showing that the government has done what it claims. There is also a difference between holding a public official accountable and hating him.
Suleman Abubakar’s response to my commentaries on the perennial flooding of Benin City blurs those distinctions, turning a legitimate public-interest debate into a contest of personalities.
For the record, the issues are simple: Why does Benin City still flood so devastatingly? What happened to the original Benin Stormwater Project? What has the present administration done about it, and what remains to be done? These are what matter to Edo people.
Instead, Abubakar calls my criticism “jaundiced”, “hollow” and “intellectually dishonest” and suggests I was in bed with former Governor Godwin Obaseki.
That last claim is curious, if not laughable. My published record of criticism of Obaseki predates Governor Monday Okpebholo and is verifiable.
Let us allow facts to speak.
—The Stormwater Project: What Happened, What Is Happening Now—
Benin City’s flooding predates this Republic. General Sam Ogbemudia started a remedial process. At the request of the late Oba Erediauwa, Governor Adams Oshiomhole in 2011 initiated a more ambitious Stormwater Master Plan.
It was funded substantially from state revenues and capital market raises. Public reports put the cost at about N30 billion, some accounts at N35 billion.
As I noted in my October 13, 2026 commentary, “Benin Stormwater Project: Not Exactly the Elephant in the Room”, less than N20 billion had reportedly been spent when the project was discontinued, with over 30 per cent progress achieved. A key component was the 13-foot-deep channel on New Lagos Road, linking the canal at Five Junction to the canal at the Traditional Ground. Completed portions were inaugurated by President Muhammadu Buhari.
The reasonable expectation was that successors would preserve the useful work, address legitimate engineering concerns, and complete it. That did not happen.
Governor Obaseki denounced the project as a fraud. In March 2021, while inspecting the Textile Mill Road catchment, he reportedly described it as a contract to defraud Edo people and alleged a design flaw of moving water from lower to higher ground.
Those were grave allegations. They required independent technical examination and transparent accounting of public funds spent. The threatened probe produced no publicly established conclusion. More importantly, flooding persisted throughout Obaseki’s eight years.
It would be inaccurate to claim that abandonment alone proves every component was unsound. Equally, an allegation of fraud does not prove fraud. Both require evidence. What is indisputable is that the project was not completed and flooding continued.
Governor Okpebholo, who assumed office in November 2024, did not originate the problem. But the responsibility to fix it now rests with him.
On July 16, 2026, Commissioner for Environment and Sustainability, Barr. Nosa Adams, announced that government had paid N800 million counterpart funding to the European Investment Bank towards reactivating the project’s second phase. He said the final phase would commence within two months, with interventions at Tomline, Siluko Road and Ekewan Road.
Commissioner for Information and Strategy, Prince Kassim Afegbua, also spoke of plans to reclaim parts of the GRA and construct channels to direct floodwaters to the Ogba River.
These announcements were welcome, and the N800 million payment deserves acknowledgement. It would be unfair to ignore it.
But payment of counterpart funding is not commencement of construction.
As of October 2026, legitimate questions remain: Has the second phase commenced as promised? What is the total cost, scope, financing arrangement with the EIB, and implementation timeline?
These are verifiable. Government can settle them by publishing documents.
Abubakar has not answered them. He argues construction during peak rains would be imprudent.
There is merit in that. Major excavation and concrete works must await suitable weather. No responsible observer should demand wasteful construction for optics.
But that does not explain the period from November 2024 to July 2026, nor whether engineering studies, financing, procurement and other preparations were done with urgency.
The question is not whether government should build recklessly in torrential rain. It is whether it has shown sufficient urgency in preparing to solve a decades-old problem. That distinction is fundamental.
—What Other States Are Doing—
The rainy-season argument collapses against other states’ experience.
Anambra, which also faces severe flooding and erosion, is instructive.
In June 2025, its Executive Council approved over N9.6 billion for erosion control, flood management and road rehabilitation, including a N3.5 billion intervention at Umunze and Umuchu.
More importantly, Anambra did not suspend action because it was raining.
In April 2026, it mobilised all 21 LGAs to clear waterways and drains of silt, debris and waste. On June 29, 2026, it declared a state of emergency on environmental degradation and ordered cleaning of drainage statewide, with a desilting and waste evacuation exercise from July 4 involving communities and businesses.
Anambra has not eliminated flooding. Clearing drains cannot replace major stormwater infrastructure.
The lesson is that long-term projects and immediate mitigation are complementary. While major channels require scheduling, desilting, waste evacuation and removal of obstructions can reduce risk during rains.
It also shows government can communicate specific actions and mobilise institutions while long-term infrastructure is prepared.
Why should Edo be held to a lower standard?
This is more pertinent given the GRA’s condition.
On October 9, 2026, The Sun reported Okpebholo announcing plans to repair GRA roads and drains after the rains, and disclosing that three companies submitted estimates of about N250 billion for broader redevelopment. He reportedly said the existing GRA was not properly planned from inception.
This matters for two reasons. First, it corroborates my observation that flooding and bad roads made movement difficult in the GRA – the concern was not fabricated. Second, it confirms major intervention is still at contemplation stage. The N250 billion was an estimate, not an approved or funded contract.
Waiting until rains subside for certain works is understandable. But engineering constraints do not preclude public accountability for preparations made, immediate measures taken, and when substantive work will start.
—Ojeifo and Obaseki: The Published Record—
The claim that I was in bed with Obaseki is not just an attack on me; it is an attempt to discredit my argument without evidence. The record answers it.
On November 30, 2019, I published “Obaseki’s Job Rating, Re-election Bid, Stupid!” – challenging his governance record, political strategy, and failure to build on Oshiomhole’s infrastructure legacy. In it, I specifically criticised his abandonment of the Stormwater Master Plan.
On September 18, 2020, I published “Contemplating Obaseki’s Long, Divisive Goodbye” during his re-election campaign, describing his first term as uninspiring, criticising his political conduct, and predicting he would lose. He won. My prediction was wrong – an admission that matters. But it proves I publicly criticised him while he was governor and seeking re-election.
On November 12, 2024, I published “Prefatory Notes to the New Governor of Edo State”, welcoming Okpebholo and urging him to prioritise infrastructure, public finance and equitable distribution across the three senatorial districts. I questioned what Obaseki had left as a defining infrastructure legacy in Edo South.
Two days later, on November 14, 2024, in “Obaseki, Okpebholo, and the Bootlickers’ Game in Edo”, I described Obaseki’s administration as marked by exclusionary and combative politics and called for a comprehensive probe of his activities, alongside anti-graft agencies.
These are not recollections assembled for this controversy. They are published, dated commentaries in THE CONCLAVE archives that anyone can verify.
They prove consistent criticism of Obaseki before, during and after his tenure – contradicting the claim that I was his ally.
If Abubakar has evidence of a compromising relationship, he should present it. If not, he should withdraw the allegation.
—Criticism Is Not Hatred—
Abubakar repeatedly suggests my intervention is driven by hatred.
Where is the evidence?
I acknowledged the significance of the N800 million counterpart payment. I have not asked that the project be abandoned; I have insisted it be completed.
It is possible to acknowledge that Okpebholo inherited a difficult situation and still ask if he has responded with urgency. It is possible to recognise the need for proper preparation while demanding transparency on timelines, costs and progress. These positions are compatible, not hostile.
If every criticism of pace is dismissed as hatred, every administration can evade accountability by attacking motives. Citizens would get fewer answers and officials fewer obligations.
Flooding does not discriminate. It disrupts businesses, destroys property, impedes movement and endangers health, regardless of party affiliation. Floodwater does not ask if a household voted APC or PDP, Oshiomhole, Obaseki or Okpebholo. Government must rise above partisan defensiveness.
—What Okpebholo Must Now Demonstrate—
The administration can settle this with evidence. It should publish:
- The financing arrangement for the second phase – total cost, EIB contribution, conditions attached to counterpart funding.
- An implementation schedule – procurement, contractor mobilisation, construction milestones, completion date.
- The scope of proposed interventions at Tomline, Siluko Road, Ekewan Road and how they relate to the original master plan.
- Immediate measures to maintain existing drains and reduce flooding in vulnerable communities while major works are prepared.
These are ordinary requirements of responsible governance. If preparatory work is done, show it. If construction awaits dry weather, publish the schedule and milestones achieved. If constraints remain, tell the public.
The objective is not to embarrass the governor but to ensure public expenditure delivers measurable benefits.
—The Argument Is About Edo, Not Ojeifo—
The sequence is clear: Oshiomhole initiated an ambitious intervention. Obaseki discontinued it after grave allegations that were never publicly resolved. Flooding persisted. Okpebholo has announced plans to reactivate it and reportedly paid counterpart funding, but must now demonstrate implementation against verifiable milestones.
He should not be blamed for originating the problem. He must be held responsible for how he addresses it.
Anambra shows practical measures can proceed during rains. Lagos and other cities show major drainage requires sustained investment and maintenance. None eliminated flooding overnight. They show governments must combine long-term planning, immediate action and transparent communication.
Edo should be no exception.
I have no personal quarrel with Governor Okpebholo. I wish him well. I have no interest in defending Obaseki’s record, which my commentaries repeatedly criticised.
My concern is that Edo people should not endure another administration where yesterday’s political disputes become today’s excuse for unfulfilled responsibilities.
The editor’s note on Abubakar’s response says his claims are being fact-checked. That is correct. Such scrutiny should extend to his allegations against me, not just the stormwater claims.
The public record is available. The financing questions should be answered. The implementation status should be verified through documents, engineering reports and visible work.
There is no need for a personal quarrel.
Ultimately, the question is not whether Sufuyan Ojeifo likes Monday Okpebholo or whether Suleman Abubakar approves of my writing. It is whether Benin City residents can expect their government to address a problem that has afflicted them for decades.
If government has made sufficient progress to disprove my concerns, I will examine the evidence and acknowledge the facts. That is the purpose of scrutiny.
READ ALSO:
- 2026 FIFA U-17 Women’s World Cup Enters Business End Wednesday
- Imo: Tinubu needs another term to consolidate reforms — Tompolo
- MTN blames auto downloads, video streaming for fast data depletion
- I Left Nigeria to Seek Permanent Residency Abroad – Chidinma
- UBA Intensifies N61bn Loan Recovery Drive, Seeks Jail Term For WEMPCO Directors
But evidence must come before celebration. If government has done the work, let it show the work. If the work remains to be done, let it do the work.
Benin needs a functioning stormwater system, not a quarrel over the journalist who insists it deserves one.
