I came across this post by the Facebook handle “Reality Update 202” asking: “ABIA STATE, WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARD? Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe has spent almost two decades — about 19 years — in the Senate, while Senator Orji Uzor Kalu has spent about 7 years in the Senate.
Yet some people are saying ‘OUK must go!’ while simultaneously insisting that Abaribe should continue. WHY?”
As not only a political analyst but also a keen observer of the two men’s political and legislative performances, I have decided to provide the answers to that “WHY?”
There is no double standard.
Politics is not a clock-watching exercise where longevity automatically equals entitlement or where shorter service guarantees renewal.
Constituents evaluate impact, character, consistency, courage, and alignment with their interests—not raw years in office.
Abaribe has earned continued support through delivery and principle; calls for OUK to go reflect distinct records and public assessments of those records.
Abaribe has represented Abia South continuously since June 2007 (multiple re-elections, now in a fifth term). Kalu has represented Abia North since June 2019 (re-elected 2023).
They serve different districts with different voter bases, histories, and expectations. Equating the two as interchangeable “Abia senators” ignores that reality.
Quality of representation over quantity of years
Abaribe’s strength lies in legislative experience, committee leadership, and a consistent national voice. He has chaired or led key committees (Media/Publicity, Power/Steel, currently Power), served as Senate Minority Leader, and repeatedly spoken out on federalism, security, Southeast equity, and governance accountability—famously calling for resignation over insecurity and standing as surety in high-profile cases that mattered to many Igbo constituents.
He has promoted “Made in Aba” trade initiatives to highlight local industry and pushed bills/motions on power reform, a proposed federal university of petroleum/geological sciences in Ukwa West, and related constituency interventions (solar lighting, transformers, education support, road works).
Supporters see a ranking, independent-minded legislator who prioritizes principle and regional advocacy over pure transactional power.
Kalu’s shorter Senate tenure includes roles such as Chief Whip and committee work, plus claims of attracting projects.
Critics, however, point to his longer public record as two-term governor (1999–2007), EFCC-related corruption convictions (later procedurally overturned with retrial ordered), and perceptions of more personality-driven, machine-style politics.
Recent constituent pushback in parts of Abia North—protests alleging limited visible impact in some LGAs, disputes over loyalty and strategy—shows that “must go” sentiment is not invented out of thin air or pure envy of Abaribe’s longevity.
History and trust matter
Their earlier relationship is public knowledge: Abaribe served as Kalu’s deputy governor, faced repeated impeachment attempts, and resigned in 2003 after a bitter fallout he has described as rooted in refusal to engage in certain patronage practices.
That history informs how many view the two men—one as a survivor who rebuilt independently, the other as a dominant figure whose style of governance left lasting divisions.
Voters are entitled to different conclusions about reliability and style.
Democracy is performance-based, not tenure-based
Long service is not a crime when voters keep returning the person; it is evidence of sustained local support. Abaribe has won repeated mandates in Abia South.
If constituents in Abia North decide Kalu’s record no longer meets their threshold, they can vote him out—exactly as democracy intends.
Demanding Abaribe’s exit solely because he has served longer while defending Kalu’s shorter stint on the same metric is the actual inconsistency.
In short: people support Abaribe’s continuation because they judge his voice, experience, and alignment with Southeast and local priorities as still valuable.
Calls for OUK to exit reflect separate judgments about results, baggage, and current political utility in his own district.
Different districts, different records, different verdicts. That is accountability, not double standard.
-Pamela O.
About the Author
