Benue State’s two most recent governors are now in open conflict. The fight is not about policy or programs. It is about who left the state in worse shape — and what that means for the people living there.
Former Governor Samuel Ortom fired back at his successor, Governor Hyacinth Alia, after Alia’s administration launched what it calls a review of handover records. Ortom called it a smokescreen.
He said the probe is not about finding genuine gaps in paperwork but about distracting the public from the current government’s own failures. The exchange is the latest in a series of public disputes between the two men. Both belong to the same political party.
That fact alone makes the hostility remarkable. Party unity is supposed to matter.
Here, it clearly does not. Ortom did not hold back. He accused the Alia administration of “bad governance.” He did not list specifics.
But the implication is clear: he believes the state is slipping backward under Alia’s watch. And he believes the investigation into his own tenure is a political tool, not a genuine attempt at accountability. Alia’s aide defended the probe as necessary.
The aide said it was meant to check for discrepancies in the documents left behind by the previous administration and to ensure a transparent transfer of power. That sounds reasonable on paper.
But in the context of a bitter personal feud, it reads differently. This matters because Benue State is not a wealthy place. It is a largely agricultural state in central Nigeria, facing persistent security problems from herder-farmer clashes and armed banditry.
The people need roads, schools, hospitals, and security. They do not need their leaders spending public energy on personal vendettas.
Yet that is exactly what is happening. Two governors from the same party are trading accusations instead of governing. One says the other is covering up incompetence.
The other says the first is trying to rewrite history. Neither is talking about what they are actually doing for the people who elected them. The stakes are concrete.
Every day spent on political infighting is a day not spent on fixing Benue’s problems. The state has real needs.
The funds meant for those needs are now the subject of a public brawl. If the probe is a distraction, as Ortom claims, then Alia is using state resources to fight a political battle instead of delivering services. If the probe is legitimate, then Ortom is trying to avoid scrutiny for his own record.
Either way, the people of Benue lose. Political transitions are always delicate.
Handover records matter. Accountability matters. But when the process becomes a weapon in a personal war, it stops being about transparency and starts being about power.
That is where Benue is now. The fragility of the relationship between these two leaders is not just a gossip item. It is a warning sign.
If the state’s top politicians cannot work together — or at least coexist without constant public attacks — then the chances of real progress shrink. The party itself may fracture.
Governance may stall further. Ortom made his position plain. He sees the probe as a political tool.
Alia’s camp sees it as necessary oversight. The people of Benue are left watching two men argue over who is to blame, while the state’s problems remain unsolved.
