FG Released 2 Trailer Loads of 50kg Rice, So Why Are We Seeing 5kg Bags in Pictures? A Rejoinder to Aguikwu Emma Ifeanyi, TPM – By Mandate 27 Group 

FG Released 2 Trailer Loads of 50kg Rice, So Why Are We Seeing 5kg Bags in Pictures? A Rejoinder to Aguikwu Emma Ifeanyi, TPM -.By Mandate 27 Group

Mr. Aguikwu Emma Ifeanyi’s piece on the Obi Aguocha rice controversy is carefully worded, and I commend him for being honest enough to concede its limits. By his own admission, he was not present when the allocation was distributed, and what he experienced “does not constitute an audit of the entire consignment.” That sentence settles the matter. A man who received one bag of rice cannot testify for two trailer loads.

Let us return to the facts. It has been publicly reported that President Tinubu provided each House member with two trailers of rice for distribution in their constituencies. What the Federal Government released was two trailer loads of 50kg bags. Hon. Aguocha’s own office, in its reaction to Chief Charles Ogbonna (Evuleogu), referred to the rice as federal palliatives meant for the constituency and insisted every item was distributed. So the receipt is not in dispute. What is in dispute is where the rice went.

So here is the question the constituents are asking, and it is a fair one. If the FG released two trailer loads of 50kg bags, why are we seeing 5kg bags in the pictures? A single 50kg bag can be repackaged into ten 5kg packs. That arithmetic may explain what was photographed, but it does not explain how many 50kg bags were received, how many 5kg packs were produced, how many households got them, and who they were. A photograph of a few small bags at a ceremony tells us nothing about the size of the consignment. Thousands of kilograms cannot be accounted for by a flash of cameras.

Mr. Aguikwu insists that those alleging diversion must provide the quantities received, the quantities diverted and the persons involved. With respect, this reverses the burden. The constituents did not receive the trailers. The honourable member did. The numbers are in his custody, not theirs. It is for the holder of a public consignment to publish how it was handled, and not for hungry citizens to guess at it. Mr. Aguikwu himself admits that transparency is the strongest institutional response, and that distribution records, allocation schedules and beneficiary information should be made available. We agree completely. Then why have they not been published?

Equally unconvincing is his attempt to move the discussion to legislative activity. A bill that has only passed First Reading is a proposal, not a project. HB 1605 for a Federal Medical Centre in Ikwuano received its First Reading in July 2024 and, as far as his own piece shows, has gone no further. A bill that is still being processed cannot feed a family or replace a missing bag of rice. A legislator’s work should not be used to cover a gap in palliative records. Both can be assessed, and both should be.

The people are also entitled to ask why only a handful of stakeholders, in a handful of wards, are being paraded as witnesses. If Umuhu Ward received rice, which of the other wards can name the quantity they received, the date, and who handed it over? Let the ward chairmen, women leaders, youth leaders and traditional rulers come out with their own figures. Testimony from many wards, backed by a written schedule, would end this matter in a day.

Evidence, as Mr. Aguikwu rightly says, should settle the rice controversy. Good. Let the honourable member present it. Publish the number of trailers and bags, the repackaging records, the ward-by-ward distribution schedule and the signed beneficiary lists. Until then, one man’s bag of rice, however gratefully received, is not an answer to the constituency’s question.