By Okechukwu Iboko
Onyebuchi Ememanka’s expertise in palmwine matters is hardly a secret. As a long-standing member of the Kegites Club, formerly known as the Palmwine Drinkards Club, Ememanka is a karid entity of the highest order.
His recent outbursts give him away as an experienced palmwine connoisseur, well versed in identifying different types of palmwine from different villages and locations. He is also at home with the overnight version of his beloved alcoholic drink.
I know that the Kegites Club is not just about palmwine. It is a reputable organisation with accomplished professionals, high-level public servants, international businessmen and very distinguished personalities. The Kegites Club promotes African culture and is a wonderful group. But there is always bound to be a black sheep in every family. Ememanka, it would appear, is only interested in tapping and drinking of “holy water.”
Of late, Ememanka has been speaking like a man determined to bring the spirit of the palmwine parlour into conversations that demand sober political reasoning. Maybe he even gets himself intoxicated before picking up his pen to write.
If enthusiasm for palmwine were an academic qualification, Ememanka might already have earned a professorship, complete with a calabash-shaped trophy and a permanent seat in the Faculty of Fermented Affairs.
But every discipline has its proper place, and every argument has its appropriate ingredients. Palmwine may inspire songs, friendship and animated conversations, but discussions about government expenditure, project financing and public accountability require something considerably stronger than rhetorical fermentation: facts, figures, records and sound reasoning.
The problem begins when a man accustomed to the language of the palmwine circle attempts to explain the complexities of public finance without adequately separating political banter from serious economic analysis.
Government projects are not financed by the enthusiasm of a drinking circle, nor are development questions settled by the loudest voice around a calabash.
A serious discussion about financing public projects should begin with straightforward questions. What is the source of the funding? What are the approved budgetary provisions? Which agency is responsible for implementation? What evidence supports the claims being made?
These are questions that deserve clear answers, not a diversion into political theatrics.
If Ememanka wishes to interrogate the financing of government projects, he should bring the relevant documents to the table. A budget document is more useful than a calabash in establishing expenditure. An audited record carries more weight than a colourful anecdote. And a verifiable fact can accomplish what an entire afternoon of political grandstanding cannot.
Ememanka’s recent political assignment makes the need for sobriety even more compelling. Having been appointed Director of Publicity for Governor Alex Otti’s 2027 re-election campaign, he now occupies a position in which the quality of his public arguments will inevitably attract greater scrutiny. Political communication is a serious responsibility, not an extension of the banter of a palmwine parlour.
There is also a fundamental distinction between Ememanka’s celebrated association with palmwine and the political priorities of Rep. Emeka Atuma. While Ememanka’s familiarity with the subject provides ample material for wordplay, Atuma’s political message is centred on the development of Abia Central. His ambition should be discussed in terms of representation, infrastructure, empowerment and practical opportunities for the people.
Rep. Emeka Atuma’s interest lies in the serious business of political representation and development. As the APC candidate for Abia Central Senatorial District in the 2027 election, his campaign should be assessed on the strength of his record, his proposals and his commitment to the people. These are matters that deserve informed scrutiny and meaningful debate.
If Ememanka believes Atuma’s arguments about government financing are wrong, he should demonstrate precisely where they fail. If he disputes a funding claim, he should produce the relevant budgetary provisions, financial records or other verifiable evidence. If he believes a political argument is misleading, he should dismantle it with facts rather than attempt to drown it in political theatrics.
That is how serious people conduct serious political debates. The public deserves answers, not noise; documentation, not diversion; and sound reasoning, not a contest in rhetorical intoxication.
Ultimately, the difference is simple: palmwine belongs to the culture of conviviality, while public finance belongs to the discipline of evidence. One may generate laughter and lively conversation; the other demands precision, documentation and accountability.
Ememanka is free to defend his arguments as vigorously as he wishes. But when he ventures into the serious business of government financing, he should leave the calabash-inspired theatrics behind and bring forward the facts.
After all, no matter how well a calabash is polished, it cannot substitute for a financial statement. And no matter how spirited the argument, fermented rhetoric will never be a substitute for evidence.
So, my dear friend Onyebuchi Ememanka, distance yourself from “Palmy” during this campaign period. It will help you approach your current assignment with the seriousness, tact, choice of words and wisdom it deserves.
After all, the gods are wise.
About The Author
