By Eze Adiuku
)Anthony Chilaka’s write-up, “Reason Mbaise Nation Should Call Ezurezu President to Order,” is less a public-interest intervention than a poorly concealed attempt to cast a legitimate Mbaise political townhall in a damaging light. Its central claims collapse once the facts of the meeting, its sponsorship, and its outcome are properly placed before the public.
An Mbaise Affair, Not a Private Scheme
The political townhall in question was an Mbaise affair, convened to give candidates of Mbaise extraction an opportunity to engage their people. It was not a secret gathering designed to promote any single politician or political party.
Crucially, the executive of Ezuruezu Mbaise endorsed the townhall, and some executive members were present at the event. The immediate past President General of Ezuruezu Mbaise was also in attendance. These facts alone make nonsense of Chilaka’s suggestion that the President General acted alone, without consultation or institutional support.
No Candidate Was Endorsed
Chilaka alleges that the townhall was a “decoy” to favour Sir Basil Maduka, the Labour Party candidate for Owerri Senate. That allegation is not supported by what happened at the meeting. The said Sir Maduka did not attend the Townhall Meeting nether did he send any representation. So, such reckless assumption is a laughable.
At the end of the townhall, no candidate was endorsed. No political party was adopted. No directive was issued to Mbaise people on whom to vote for. The meeting simply provided a platform for engagement between aspirants/candidates and the Mbaise public—an exercise consistent with democratic participation, not a subversion of it.
To describe a transparent, multi-party townhall as a “political warehouse” is therefore not analysis; it is deliberate misrepresentation.
Chilaka Speaks Outside the Board
Chilaka also claims that the Board of Trustees of Ezuruezu Mbaise is not being carried along in the organisation’s activities. Yet he is not a member of the Board of Trustees.
A person outside the Board cannot credibly speak on its internal workings, its level of consultation, or its satisfaction—or dissatisfaction—with the leadership. If the Board has concerns, the proper and credible channel is for the Board itself to speak through its recognised officers or an official statement.
Until that happens, Chilaka’s assertion remains speculation dressed up as institutional knowledge.
On Iriji Mbaise Accounts
The write-up raises questions about the account of the August 15, 2026 Iriji Mbaise festival. That matter will be handled at the appropriate time by all the parties involved.
It is irresponsible to turn an unresolved administrative or financial question into a basis for wholesale condemnation of the Ezuruezu leadership before the relevant organs have completed their review. Accountability requires process, documentation, and the participation of those properly mandated to examine the accounts—not trial by anonymous publication.
The Question of Anonymity
Perhaps the most telling weakness in Chilaka’s article is the author’s refusal to engage openly. If he genuinely believes that the President General is leading Ezuruezu Mbaise astray, and that the future of the Mbaise Nation is at stake, he should have the courage to stand by his claims openly.
Public criticism is welcome in a democratic society. But anonymous allegations, especially those touching on integrity, financial accountability, and political bias, should meet a higher standard of proof. Chilaka offers sweeping conclusions, selective framing, and no verifiable evidence that can withstand scrutiny.
Conclusion
The Ezuruezu Mbaise political townhall was a legitimate Mbaise engagement, supported by elements of the organisation’s executive and attended by its immediate past President General. No endorsement was made, and no candidate was favoured.
Chilaka’s article should therefore be read for what it is: an anonymous, evidence-free attempt to inflame sentiment against the Ezuruezu Mbaise leadership. Mbaise people deserve honest debate, verifiable facts, and accountable leadership—not shadowy accusations designed to divide the community.
