By Fegor Ogene JP.
The article titled “A Clarion Call to Reject Sen. Ede Dafinone in 2027: The Time for Accountability Is Now,” by Comr. Okerevwodjaye Ogheneyore Israel, raises legitimate questions about accountability, the Okuama crisis, justice and the plight of detained Urhobo citizens. However, serious political commentary must be anchored in verifiable facts. Where claims contradict the public record, they deserve to be challenged.
The most glaring example is the repeated claim that Senator Ede Dafinone was “silent” on Okuama. That is demonstrably inconsistent with several reports by national newspapers. On March 12–14, 2025, The Cable, The Guardian, Vanguard, Leadership and Punch separately reported Dafinone’s calls for justice for the detained Okuama citizens, insisting that they should either be released or tried by a competent court. He also advocated the rehabilitation and rebuilding of Okuama, including homes, schools, healthcare facilities and roads.
The record further shows that Dafinone’s engagement with the crisis did not begin on the eve of the 2027 election. His participation in Senate discussions concerning the Okuama tragedy was recorded as early as March 19, 2024. In April 2024, he was also involved in the intervention that preceded the release of the Ewu monarch, King Clement Ikolo, from military custody. The Nation, The Guardian, Punch and Leadership reported the development and his role in the process.
It is therefore important to distinguish between advocacy and executive authority. A senator cannot order the Nigerian Army to release a detainee, cannot issue a judicial order and cannot personally enforce a court judgment. His constitutional tools are legislation, representation, oversight and advocacy. The appropriate question, therefore, is whether Dafinone used those tools to demand justice and due process. The documented record shows that he did.
The subsequent judicial development reinforces this distinction. In June 2026, the Federal High Court in Warri ordered the unconditional release of Prof. Arthur Ekpekpo and other detained Okuama leaders. The ruling, reported by Vanguard, Punch, BusinessDay and Leadership, was an exercise of judicial authority. Enforcement of such an order rest with the appropriate executive and security institutions, not with an individual senator.
The claim that Dafinone has taken no legislative action is equally difficult to sustain. On November 4, 2025, Vanguard reported that the Senate ordered an investigation and repairs of the Ujevwu–Itakpe rail line following a motion by Dafinone. In July 2025, he also inspected the rail line to assess its condition firsthand. In May 2026, The Authority reported his reaction to the Federal Government’s budget provision for extending the Itakpe rail line to Abuja. These are documented examples of legislative and oversight engagement.
His broader record includes interventions relating to infrastructure, education, energy, environmental protection, petroleum-sector governance, railway development, host-community concerns, security and regional development. Not every legislative intervention will automatically produce immediate implementation, but that is different from claiming that there has been no legislative activity.
Accountability, however, must be comprehensive. If the Okuama tragedy is to be subjected to serious scrutiny, responsibility must be examined across the executive, security agencies, judiciary and legislature. Singling out one senator and assigning him powers constitutionally vested in other institutions does not advance accountability; it distorts it.
Political opposition to Dafinone is legitimate, and every candidate should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny ahead of 2027. But political disagreement must not become a licence to disregard verifiable facts. The public record contains multiple reports of his interventions on Okuama, his calls for justice and due process, his legislative motions and his participation in institutional engagements.
The people of Okuama, the detainees and displaced families deserve justice, truth and accountability—not selective narratives. Delta Central voters likewise deserve to judge candidates on their actual records of representation, legislative performance, advocacy and institutional engagement. Senator Dafinone may be criticised, challenged or rejected politically, but such judgment should be based on the complete record, not on claims of “silence” contradicted by documented evidence. Accountability is essential—but accountability must begin with the truth.
