A political system where officials block each other's nominees not on merit, but as a form of transactional revenge, has been given a fittingly local name: 'Ojoro Politics.' This is the central thesis of a new column by Isaac Asabor, which diagnoses a particularly Nigerian brand of governance paralysis. The piece argues that this isn't just opposition; it's a calculated system of mutual obstruction where the only rule is retaliation. (The term 'ojoro' itself, implying trickery or foul play, sets the tone perfectly.)
Asabor frames this behavior as a national 'Do-Me-I-Do-You Syndrome,' a pidgin expression that captures the essence of tit-for-tat retaliation. The column uses the specific example of the screening—or, more accurately, the deliberate non-screening—of nominees put forward by Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara. This isn't presented as an isolated incident, but as a symptom of a widespread political culture. The logic is brutally simple: you stalled my people, so I'll stall yours, and the business of the state can wait indefinitely.
This syndrome turns legislative chambers and confirmation hearings into theaters of political score-settling rather than venues for scrutiny. The purported goal of 'checks and balances' is subverted into a weapon for personal and factional grievances. Asabor's analysis suggests that when a nominee's fate is decided not by their CV but by which governor proposed them, the entire concept of governance collapses. It's administration by grudge, where the only policy is payback.
Focusing on Rivers State, the column implies the current impasse over Fubara's nominees is a textbook case. The political standoff in the state, stemming from a much-publicized feud between the governor and his predecessor, provides fertile ground for this 'Do-Me-I-Do-You' dynamic. Legislative action becomes hostage to executive branch squabbles, leaving critical positions unfilled and government functions in limbo. The people who lose, of course, are the citizens waiting for effective governance.
