A Response to Concerned APC Members From Northern Senatorial District
The recent discourse initiated by certain stakeholders regarding the retention of the All Progressives Congress (APC) State Chairmanship within the Northern Senatorial District deserves a rigorous intellectual and political interrogation. While their arguments are presented with vigor, they rest upon a fundamental misconstruction of the “Tripod of Power” – the delicate political architecture that has historically ensured stability and inclusivity in Cross River State.
By conflating legislative leadership and federal patronage with state party administration, the Concerned APC Members From Northern Senatorial District seek to recalibrate the definition of equity to facilitate a localized monopoly on power. To ensure the long-term viability and internal cohesion of the APC, we must decouple sentiment from structure and return to the foundational principle of the South-Central-North equilibrium.
The Fallacy of the “Governance Ecosystem” vs. The “Tripod of Power”
The argument put forward by the Concerned APC Members From Northern Senatorial District attempts to dilute the strategic weight of the State Chairmanship by submerging it within a broader list of offices, including the Speakership and the Secretary to the State Government (SSG). This is a strategic obfuscation. In the Nigerian political tradition, and specifically within the APC’s operational framework, the “Tripod of Power” consists of the Governor, the Deputy Governor, and the State Party Chairman.
These three roles constitute the executive and organizational heartbeat of the party. The Speaker, while a high-ranking official, leads the legislature – a separate and independent arm of government. The SSG is an appointed functionary serving at the discretion of the Governor. To suggest that a Speaker from the Central District serves as a surrogate for a Party Chairman is to ignore the unique, gatekeeping authority of the party’s administrative head, who oversees the machinery that validates all candidates for elective office.
Addressing Historical Revisionism
The narrative that the North is “least accommodated,” predicated on the single term of Barrister Alphonsus Ogar Eba, ignores the political realities of the immediate past. From 2015 to 2023, the Northern Senatorial District held the state’s highest office (the Governorship). During the twilight of that administration, the North concurrently secured the State Chairmanship.
Equity is not merely a chronological calculation of years; it is measured by the concentration of power. For the North to have held the Governorship for eight years and subsequently insist on a “second term” for the Chairmanship under a Southern Governor creates a “North-North” dominance that effectively marginalizes the Central. The Central Senatorial District has historically functioned as the state’s “stabilizing bridge,” yet it currently finds itself excluded from the executive-party tripod.
The Central District: Correcting the Power Imbalance
Under the current administration, the configuration is as follows: Governor: South; Deputy Governor: North; Party Chairman: North.
This creates a South-North-North axis. This is not a “negotiated balance”; it is a systemic exclusion of the Central District from the highest echelons of the party-government interface. The Central District, the consistent heartbeat of APC’s grassroots mobilization, cannot be relegated to the status of a “silent partner” while the North occupies two of the three legs of the tripod.
Federal Appointments: National Merit, Not Zonal Quotas
The Concerned APC Members From Northern Senatorial District argument cites ministerial and federal appointments held by Central indigenes as evidence of “dominance.” This is an intellectual overreach. Federal appointments are made at the discretion of the Presidency, often based on individual merit, national service, or the exigencies of federal character at the national level.
Utilizing federal ministerial slots to justify state-level zoning imbalances sets a dangerous precedent. By this logic, any zone that produces a high-performing federal official would be “penalized” by losing its claim to state party leadership. State zoning must be governed by state-specific dynamics and the internal pacts of the local party, not by the variables of Abuja politics.
Preserving Party Unity Through Strategic Rotation
The group cautions that a transition of the chairmanship would incite “resentment.” However, a far more potent threat to the APC is the total alienation of the Central Senatorial District. As the “swing zone” of Cross River politics, the Central District is essential for electoral victory. By denying the Central its legitimate turn to lead the party, the APC risks a “middle-out” collapse, where the center of the state loses its sense of belonging in the party’s administrative future.
Conclusion: The Path to Restoration
Justice is defined by consistency. If the APC is to remain objective and fair to all, it must acknowledge that the Central District is currently the “odd man out” in the state’s power structure.
Retaining the chairmanship in the North is not parity; it is a surplus. Transitioning it to the Central is not a “displacement”; it is a restoration of the tripod. For the sake of structural balance, and to ensure a formidable front for the 2027 cycle, the APC State Chairmanship must return to Cross River Central.
Signed:
Cross River Central Progressive Voices
3 January, 2026.
