Judge the District, Not the Man: Why Cross River North Deserves Respect in the 2031 Conversation.

By Peter Agi

The question keeps resurfacing in Cross River politics: should the Northern senatorial district be judged by the perceived non-performance of former Governor Ben Ayade? The answer is no. Using one administration as a proxy for an entire district’s capacity confuses accountability with prejudice, and it undermines the actual record of the North in building the state’s current political system.

Ben Ayade governed from 2015 to 2023. His tenure produced visible projects and policy shifts that drew national attention, including the Calabar monorail, the Obudu cargo airport, and the push for agro-industrial parks. It also produced criticism over debt levels, project completion rates, and the management of public finance. A dispassionate appraisal acknowledges both: Ayade pursued an industrialization agenda with an ambition uncommon in the state’s history, but the execution gap between conception and delivery left much of that agenda incomplete. Whether that amounts to woeful performance or visionary leadership with poor delivery depends on the metrics applied. What it does not amount to is evidence that the Northern district lacks people capable of governing. Governance is not inherited by geography, and failure or success in one term cannot erase the institutional memory and human capital of a district.

The North’s contribution to Cross River’s political evolution predates Ayade and extends beyond him. At a point in time the civil service of the state was virtually built upon the strength of northern people who manned key offices across ministries, departments, and agencies. From finance to education, health to works, Northern administrators designed and ran systems that kept the state functioning in its early decades. That foundation shaped how government operated long before the current party alignments. The district has evidently contributed to the state’s evolutionary history up to this point, not as spectators but as architects of the bureaucracy that translates policy into public service.

The North also provided the political capital that helped institutionalize rotation as the state’s conflict-management mechanism. When the formula was negotiated after 1999, Northern elites accepted a structure that delayed their turn in order to keep the state together after the South and Central had served. That decision required restraint and strategic calculation. It was not the behavior of a bloc lacking political foresight. It was the behavior of actors who understood that stability requires deferred gratification and that a state held together by mutual concession is stronger than one held together by force. Rotation survived because the North agreed to play by rules that did not immediately favor it.

On competence and character, the district’s profile is not in doubt. Cross River North has produced administrators, legislators, diplomats, academics, and business leaders with national and international records. Senators, House members, ministers, permanent secretaries, and professionals in finance, law, medicine, and academia trace their origin to Obudu, Ogoja, Yala, Bekwarra, and Obanliku. The district has supplied technocrats who managed complex portfolios at the federal level and entrepreneurs who built enterprises outside the patronage economy. Names may change with each administration, but the pool of capable people does not disappear. To reduce that pool to one governorship is to ignore a broader talent base that exists independently of any single officeholder.

The argument that the North lacks confidence, intellectual integrity, or capacity does not survive contact with that record. What the district has lacked at times is a unified political platform that translates individual capacity into collective governance outcomes. That is a problem of political organization, not of human capital. When elites prioritize district loyalty over statewide competence, they produce candidates who govern for their zone and expect others to wait for their turn. That pattern is not unique to the North. It appears across all three districts when rotation is treated as entitlement rather than responsibility. The difference is that the North is more often singled out for it, while similar behavior elsewhere is treated as normal politics.

Confronting the trajectory that undermines the North’s capacity requires naming the mechanism. The most common one is proxy judgment. If a governor from the North underperforms, the conclusion drawn is that the district cannot produce capable leadership. If a governor from another district underperforms, the conclusion is usually limited to the individual. That double standard narrows the field in future contests and discourages statewide recruitment. It also creates a self-fulfilling prophecy: when a district is told it lacks capacity, its elites stop presenting candidates who can compete on statewide platforms, and the prediction becomes true. The cost is paid by the entire state, which is denied a wider pool of qualified leaders.

The streets are less forgiving of this logic. In Ogoja, BEKWARRA, Obanliku, Obudu, and Yala, the complaint is not that the district lacks people. It is that the system filters out people who do not fit the district-centric model of politics. When voters are asked what they want, the answer is consistent across zones: roads that do not stop at LGA boundaries, schools with teachers, hospitals with drugs, and a government that treats the state as one economic unit. None of those demands are zone-specific. They are governance demands, and they can be met by any candidate with the competence and character to deliver. The demand is for performance, not for origin.

Respect for the Northern district should rest on three facts. First, the district accepted and sustained the rotation formula that has kept Cross River stable since 1999. Second, it possesses a pool of individuals with proven capacity in public and private sectors, many of whom have managed institutions larger and more complex than the state itself. Third, its political capital was instrumental in evolving the current system that all zones now benefit from. Inventing unjustifiable storylines to undermine the district ignores this record and distorts the choices voters should be making. Political discourse that relies on caricature instead of evidence weakens the state by limiting the range of acceptable candidates.

Cross River’s 2031 conversation should move past proxy judgment. If performance is to be the standard, apply it to individuals, not to districts. Appraise candidates on record, on plans, and on the ability to govern statewide. Look at how they have managed resources, built institutions, resolved conflict, and communicated with the public. Demand evidence of character, competence, and capacity. If rotation remains the framework, use it as a floor that prevents exclusion, not as a ceiling that limits choice. A floor ensures no zone is permanently shut out. A ceiling ensures the state never gets the best available candidate.

The North should be respected not because it is due a turn, but because it has demonstrated the capacity to contribute to governance at the level the state requires. The district’s political capital is not theoretical. It is visible in the civil service legacy, in the legislative records, in the federal appointments, and in the private sector footprint of its people. That capital can be deployed again to address Cross River’s fiscal constraints, its infrastructure deficit, and its need for investment that connects the three zones economically.

The North will continue to seek power anchored on meritocracy rather than mediocrity. It is evident that the Northern district possesses strong political capital to make a remarkable contribution to the socioeconomic and sociopolitical status of the state. Enough of the rhetorical argument aimed at undermining the district. The state cannot afford to recycle narratives that shrink the field of leadership to fit old prejudices.

The future Cross River needs cannot afford to disqualify a district based on one administration’s mixed legacy. It needs a political culture where the best candidate, from any zone, can be judged on merit and held accountable on delivery. That is how rotation becomes a tool for inclusion rather than a trap for mediocrity. By 2031, the measure should be simple: who can govern all of Cross River, and who has shown the character and competence to do it. Everything else is distraction.

Peter Agi (FCA)
A Public Affairs Commentator
Writes from Ijegu-Ojor, Yala LGA