A man may win a party ticket. He may enjoy the backing of a governor. He may fill the streets with supporters, gather traditional rulers around him and convince his party that he is the right man for the job. But when he asks the people to send him to the Senate, but the question is what does his public record say about him?
That question now follows Hon. Oden Ewa, the APC candidate for Cross River Central Senatorial District, following a judgment delivered by the High Court of Cross River State, Calabar, on 30 September 2025 in a case involving Diamond Bank Plc, Internex Limited and other defendants.
The case is not a criminal conviction. It is not proof that Ewa committed fraud. But it contains findings about a disputed mortgage, a substantial bank claim and property belonging to the estate of a deceased man. Those findings raise questions that deserve clear answers from anyone asking the people of Cross River Central to entrust him with a seat in the Nigerian Senate.
And these are questions that cannot be answered by party slogans, political endorsements or the noise of campaign rallies.
In Suit No. HC/101/2017, Diamond Bank Plc sought to recover ₦209,811,317.76, together with interest and costs, in a dispute involving Internex Limited and other defendants. Oden Ewa was named as the third defendant.
The original writ of summons, issued in March 2017, claimed the principal sum, 20 per cent annual interest until judgment, 10 per cent annual interest after judgment until payment, and ₦1 million in legal costs.
These were the bank's claims, not an automatic finding that every amount demanded was payable by every defendant.
The dispute became more complicated when the validity of a third-party legal mortgage over property associated with the estate of late Chief Effiong John Uma came before the court.
The defendants' counsel argued that the deceased had not validly executed the mortgage deed. The argument included the allegation that the purported mortgagor had already died before the deed was signed on 27 April 2014.
The issue before the court was whether there was a valid mortgage that could lawfully stand against the property.
On 30 September 2025, Justice B. T. Ebutta delivered the judgment.
The judge found that the mortgage property formed part of the estate of late Chief Effiong John Uma and held that, in the absence of a valid mortgagor, the third-party legal mortgage was void from the beginning.
The court consequently set aside the tripartite legal mortgage.
Read that again.
The court set aside the mortgage because it found that there was no valid mortgagor.
This was not a minor disagreement over the spelling of a name or a simple mistake in paperwork. The validity of the document used to secure the transaction was central to the dispute, and the judge ultimately ruled that the mortgage could not stand.
But there is another important part of the judgment that must not be lost in the argument.
The judge did not throw out the bank's entire case. The judgment states that the claimant's case succeeded in part. The first three reliefs succeeded only against the first and third defendants, while the fourth relief failed. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.
Ewa was the third defendant.
So, what exactly did the court decide against him? What financial obligations, if any, remained enforceable against him after the judgment? What was his precise role in the transaction? And what does the complete record show about the relationship between the bank's debt claim and the disputed mortgage?
These are not questions that should be answered by guesswork.
They are questions for which the public deserves a clear explanation supported by the full judgment and relevant transaction records.
There is a reason this matters.
When an ordinary person enters a bank transaction, signs documents or takes responsibility for a company, the consequences may follow that person for years. When the same person later seeks public office, the public has a legitimate interest in understanding significant court findings involving that person's business dealings.
A political candidate does not lose the right to a fair hearing because he wants to become a senator. Neither should the public be told to stop asking questions simply because the candidate belongs to a powerful political party.
The judgment does not establish that Ewa was criminally convicted of fraud. It does not, by itself, prove that he forged a signature or personally committed fraud against the deceased's estate. Those would be serious claims requiring evidence beyond what the supplied pages establish.
But the judgment does establish that the court set aside the disputed mortgage and that the bank's case succeeded in part against the first and third defendants.
That is enough to make the document relevant to a serious discussion about public accountability.
Oden Ewa must be given the opportunity to explain the judgment, and the people must be given the opportunity to examine his explanation.
There is another dimension to this matter.
Ewa is not seeking a seat in a private club. He is seeking the mandate to represent Cross River Central, a district where many families are struggling with bad roads, poor public facilities, unemployment and limited opportunities for young people.
The Senate is a place where laws are made, public spending is scrutinised and government agencies are questioned. A senator must be able to demand answers from others. The question is whether the people who elect him can also expect answers when they have questions about his own record.
That is the heart of this issue.
It is not enough to ask whether a candidate can attract crowds or whether influential politicians are ready to stand behind him. The electorate must also ask whether the candidate is prepared to explain difficult matters without turning every question into a political fight.
If Ewa believes the judgment has been misunderstood or misrepresented, he has the opportunity to put the complete facts before the public. If he believes the case has no bearing on his suitability for office, he can explain why.
What he cannot reasonably expect is that the mere possession of an APC ticket will make the questions disappear.
There is also the question of his political relationship with Governor Bassey Edet Otu.
Ewa served in the governor's administration, and his senatorial ambition is linked to the wider APC political structure in Cross River State. His supporters have organised political activities around his candidacy and the governor's political project.
Political support is normal in a democracy. Governors support candidates, parties organise campaigns, and politicians build alliances. None of these activities is proof of wrongdoing.
But when a candidate is closely associated with a sitting governor, the people have a right to ask whether he will represent their interests independently or whether political loyalty will take priority when difficult decisions arise.
If elected, will Ewa be prepared to question decisions that do not benefit Central Senatorial District, even when those decisions come from political allies?
Will he be willing to demand accountability from government agencies and public officials without fear that his questions might upset the people who helped him secure his political opportunity?
These questions become particularly important when the candidate is asking voters to trust him with the responsibility of oversight.
The issue is not whether Otu has a right to support Ewa. He does. The issue is whether the people of Central can be confident that the person they elect will answer to them first.
A Senate seat belongs to the people. It is not a gift from a governor, a reward for loyalty or a family inheritance.
And the people must be able to examine the record of anyone who seeks it.
The Diamond Bank judgment therefore deserves to be discussed on its own facts, without turning it into a weapon for making allegations the court did not establish.
The same standard should apply to the controversy involving MC Okrika and the reported ₦13 million intervention connected to a solar-powered borehole project.
A September 2026 report by Daily Lamp quoted the Ratel Movement as denying that Ewa handed ₦13 million to MC Okrika. According to the movement, the money was spent directly on the borehole project through Ewa's engineers, and the group challenged those alleging a cash payment to produce verifiable evidence.
That account should not be ignored. Neither should the public be discouraged from seeking transparent records of a project presented as a community intervention.
If the money was spent directly on the borehole, the public can reasonably ask for records showing the project's cost, the work carried out and the facilities delivered. If someone claims that cash was handed to Okrika, that person should provide evidence supporting the claim.
The distinction matters because political arguments can easily turn disputed accounts into accepted stories. A responsible publication must not do that.
The bank judgment, the governor's political support and the Okrika controversy are three different matters. They should not be presented as proof of a single allegation against Ewa.
Their common thread is the need for transparency when a person seeking public office becomes the subject of serious public questions.
For the people of Cross River Central, the choice ahead should not be based only on the number of supporters a candidate can assemble or the strength of the political figures standing behind him.
The district deserves a representative who can defend its interests, scrutinise public spending, ask difficult questions and explain his own record when necessary.
That is why the Diamond Bank judgment matters. Not because a court document should automatically destroy a person's political ambition, but because a public office seeker must be ready to explain significant findings that concern him.
So, before the people are asked to vote for Oden Ewa in 2027, there are questions worth putting directly to him.
What was his precise role in the transaction that led to the Diamond Bank case?
What obligations did the court ultimately leave enforceable against him?
What does the complete judgment say about the claims that succeeded against the first and third defendants?
What is his explanation of the disputed mortgage that the court set aside?
And, if elected, will he be prepared to subject himself to the same standard of scrutiny that he will be expected to apply to public institutions?
These questions do not amount to a declaration of guilt. They are a call for answers.
Ewa is entitled to respond. His supporters are entitled to defend his record. The people of Cross River Central are entitled to examine the evidence and decide what weight to give it.
But one thing should be clear: political popularity cannot replace accountability, and the backing of powerful people cannot remove a candidate's responsibility to answer legitimate questions.
The 2027 election will give Central Senatorial District an opportunity to decide who should represent it in Abuja.
Before that decision is made, the public deserves more than assurances, campaign promises and political endorsements.
It deserves facts. It deserves answers. And it deserves a candidate who understands that the first responsibility of public office is to the people.
Post A Comment: