I have taken pains to reflect, albeit rapt with interest , on most of
the comments attributed to Rochas in this his period as governor of Imo
state . And I have, in utter surprise, seen tints of evidences enough to
color them in shades of abstract thoughts devoid of concrete reality.
However, it would be stating the obvious to believe that most were
expressed as loose comments without recourse to caution. I have also
searched through wisdom books for cues on where he got the impetus to
speak the way he did but to no avail. Instead compelling evidences
suggestive of a remarkable illiteracy showed up, much in conflict with
the claims he makes about himself . Many of my critics may feel I
probably pick on Rochas too unfairly but such thoughts would only prompt
images of a divergent political inclination between us and I don't care
a hoot to be accused of that. While I may not be identified as a card
carrying member of any political party, I still don't expect myself to
be indifferent to a hypothetical thoughts that tends to injure my peace.
Embarrassingly, of all the awful comments Rochas made, his
recent unfortunate comment on salaries of governors, perhaps, stands
as the one that embraces incredibility most. This is because it is in
conflict with all known virtues needed for the growth of democratic
governance, and as the most erroneous hypothetical submission any
governor can make, it is as encyclopedic as the enormous wealth Rochas
is believed to have accumulated in office. However, if we accept that
stealing is a way to cushion the adverse influence poor salary has on
governors as postulated by Rochas, then we also should accept that his
postulate is suggestive that virtues like credibility and
accountability, which many believe command respect, has far-reaching
consequences when appreciated in governance. Based on this hypothesis,
we cannot agree that Rochas, whose electoral promises anchored on
forfeiture of security vote and who now complains of poor salary do not
steal and the same time hold on to the assumption that the meager salary
was enough to purchase all the landed properties , half the size of
Imo, he accumulated while in office. Intuitively, one may believe
that the is a loose way of exposing inherent ignorance. Granted, but
still one cannot pretend to be blind to the blame brush of
incredibility the postulate tarred on his personality . If we liken the
brain, for instance, as the central processing unit of a computer,
then it goes to state that the mind is the random access memory while
the mouth serves as the monitor that displays informations which are at
home in the mind. It is arguable then to posit from this that speeches
are actions which are represented in their potential state. So whatever
comments made by Rochas are vivid displays of his inner thoughts and
intended actions . In the light of this, any attempt to downplay the
ills in his useless comments as inconsequential would be inimical to
the collective interest of the people of Imo.
As alluded to above, and from inferences drawn from Igbo
traditional wisdom, the suggestion that hunger or poverty influences a
sane mind to steal is an idea the Igbo do not consent to. They argue
that hunger, poverty and poor salary do not fall within the
determinants of credibility and neither do they influence a sane mind to
steal. However, in their argument , they pointed accusing fingers
much to the popular notion that goes to say that stealing is in the
blood. A suggestion that does not see both hunger and poverty as a
factor in this regard. If we consider some of the observable practices
done in life, we may have to admit that this notion of no-association
has the potential to grow in strength, pushing the controversy to shift
more and more towards the question of what exactly can elicit theft
among individuals who are not poorly paid? Does hunger or poverty have
relatively "innocent" and brief semantic effects on stealing or can it
affect, maximally, the whole aspect of our overt behavior to push one
to even nurse the idea of stealing in the first place? In real terms,
if we flash the word "theft", does it prim poverty? To answer these
questions, perhaps, we may have to look at how poor the salaries of
these governors are.
A good practical approach in this analysis is to look at
what governors are given as remuneration. In 2008, this was put as
#11,540,896 annually. Another #6,671,115 is set as severance gratuity,
which should be paid at the completion of their tenure. The government
also bears the medical expenses of governors and their families. At
face value, this appears inadequate, but if other allowances like
security vote, wardrobe, entertainment, domestic servants ,
inconvenience. feeding, furniture, etc are added, it swells to an
enormous proportion. Their only bane is the characteristic lifestyle of
opulence most of these governors live. When this lifestyle is put into
scrutiny, it becomes easy to see, even with the huge sum spent on
them, the pretension standing in conflict with their means of
livelihood. This is what presents a reason for the complaints, the
likes of Rochas make. The evidence provided by the lifestyle of
opulence has lent cues to suspect that they may have been pilfering from
the state treasury. It does not in anyway tell why they steal and this
is the puzzle we intend to unravel here. To put the question straight,
is poor salary a determinant of stealing as postulated by Rocha's?
Let's take Obiano and Anambra as case study. Obiano is on the same
salary scale but has never protested of its inadequacy. He has always
shown that the job satisfaction he gets from the job as governor
eclipses the meagerness of the income . He has constantly been paying
salaries and pensions as at when due, with much adherence to the oath of
office he swore to be honest in the discharge of his duty. Also, he
has not accumulated as much wealth as would put a question mark on his
source of income. This is applicable to Enugu and Ebony state
governors. One wonders why Rochas presents a different case.
The above case study does not complement the reason of poor
salary Rochas postulated as to why governors steal. Interestingly, if
I bring to the fore, Rochas comments, and juxtapose it with the
analogy of two friends, Kalu and Kanu, perhaps, a clearer picture of
the inferences drawn from his comments will be well appreciated. Two
friends were billed to attend a traditional wedding ceremony of their
colleague in Emekuku, few kilometers away from Owerri. One, Kalu
hails from Ohiafia, while the other, Kanu , hails from Ututu . Kalu
was apprehensive of making the trip in the company of his friend, Kanu
for fear of an anticipated disgrace he might bring on him. He has
constantly been warned of his unbearable gluttony in the past. Kanu on
his part pleaded with Kalu to show restraint in the manner he calls him
the name "Onye Ututu" in jest. This is because the word "Onye Ututu" is
synonymous to gluttony. The deal was struck on the condition that Kanu
wouldn't act like one. When they got at the scene, they were served
with oil bean salad, deliciously prepared with stockfish. As soon as
Kanu saw the dish, he salivated profusely that the sound of the
salivation in his throat become too loud to be heard from a distance.
So Kalu turned to him and uttered in dismay, "if you call yourself Onye
Ututu, don't blame anyone" By inference, it would not be difficult
to understand the message Rochas' unguarded utterances and body
languages sent. He has told us that governors steal because of low
salary and it would amount to double standard to charge anyone for libel
in a crime he committed in giving himself a name. Just recently,
Rochas, in a naive state of excitement, listed all the investments of
his family members as a justification to keep the gubernatorial seat of
Imo state in his family's piggy bank. It is only sentiment that would
not perceive his nepotistic thought here and the big sleeping question
of how he was able to accumulate such an enormous wealth with the meager
resources at the disposal of governors. This is the the big sleeping
question Rochas has failed to address and of which he feels that in its
wakefulness, Imo people will absolutely revolt. In his pride he
wondered why rivals whom he ironically identified as those who have not
stolen from state treasury, would want to unseat him when they have no
investments in the state. So he needed someone as a shield; a close
relative.
I have argued in most of my write ups that the absence of
honesty and credibility in the discharge of the duties of these
governors has always been the bane and this is the focal point of this
discourse. I have also argued here that poverty or hunger are not
determinant of moral obligation and behavior; neither are they necessary
for identifying which governor is likely to honour his oath of office,
or which is likely to toe the path of credibility to the completion of
his office. Incredibility and dishonesty are the ills inherent in most
of these governors who see poor salary as a factor. They embrace this
ills without conscious choice and intentions. It is believed to be in
the blood as the igbo would say. There are no better events than what is
being down done now to Rochas to checkmate his inordinate ambition and
to tell him in the face that enough is enough.
