Public officials must answer difficult questions about their performance. But public accountability also requires criticism that citizens can examine against a clear record.
A post shared by Instablog9ja attributes to businessman Cubana Chief Priest a description of David Umahi as the “second-worst minister” produced by the South-East, alongside a call for President Bola Tinubu to replace him and other ministers.
The remarks raise a legitimate subject for public debate: what should citizens expect from those entrusted with public office? However, a ranking of this kind is an assessment, rather than proof of failure. Its value depends on the criteria and evidence behind it.
WHAT DOES THE RANKING MEASURE?
Before describing any minister as among the worst, the public deserves to know the basis of comparison. Is the assessment about completed projects, expenditure, delivery timelines, road quality, transparency or responsiveness to communities?
Without a stated standard, a strong description can attract attention while leaving the central question unanswered.
This does not remove Cubana Chief Priest’s right to criticise Umahi. Citizens do not need an engineering qualification or a government appointment to question public spending. Businesspeople, commuters and residents experience the consequences of infrastructure decisions and have every right to demand better.
The same principle requires that criticism remain open to scrutiny.
THE RECORD SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR EXAMINATION
An assessment of road delivery should distinguish between projects announced, contracts awarded, construction underway and work completed for public use. These stages cannot reasonably be presented as interchangeable achievements.
It should also distinguish inherited responsibilities from new commitments and examine the funding, deadlines and contractual obligations attached to each project.
Where delivery has fallen short, the responsible authorities should explain why. Where work has been completed and independently confirmed, that progress should receive fair recognition.
Neither praise nor condemnation should outrun the evidence.
THE STRONGEST RESPONSE IS TRANSPARENCY
For Umahi and those defending his performance, the most useful response would be an accessible project record: locations, contract values, funding released, completion targets and current status.
Such information should be tested against site visits, procurement records, contractor responses and the experiences of road users. Official photographs and statements can contribute to reporting, but they cannot answer every question about quality, cost or completion.
A functioning road is ultimately judged by the people who use it.
REGIONAL EXPECTATIONS AND NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
The debate also raises a broader issue about political representation. Communities understandably expect appointments to produce visible benefits. Yet a federal works portfolio carries responsibilities across Nigeria.
A fair assessment must therefore examine both the concerns of South-East communities and the wider national obligations of the office. Regional identity alone cannot establish either success or failure.
For citizens, the practical questions remain straightforward: Are journeys safer? Are delays reduced? Is construction durable? Is public money producing the promised result?
TMY NEWS’S POSITION
TMY News’s editorial position is that sweeping rankings require a clear basis. The description attributed to Cubana Chief Priest should be treated as his opinion, rather than an established finding about Umahi’s performance.
Equally, rejecting that description does not establish that every decision or project under Umahi has succeeded. Those questions require their own evidence.
The public deserves a debate that makes government easier to scrutinise. Critics should identify specific shortcomings. Officials should provide specific answers. The media should examine both.
Umahi deserves a fair assessment, and Nigerians deserve an accountable government. Those expectations belong together.
