“When silence protects the powerful, truth becomes an act of courage.”
Public office is not a shield against scrutiny; it is a public trust that invites it. In Balanga/Billiri Federal Constituency, the reported tension between Hon. Ali Isa and his constituent, Manasa Mailafiya, has therefore become more than a personal disagreement. It is a test of whether representation in Gombe South will be defined by dialogue, accountability and constitutional restraint or by fear, complaints and the selective use of state institutions.
A Constituency with High Expectations
Balanga/Billiri is politically significant in Gombe South.
The constituency has produced and continues to sustain influential political figures, including a representative in the House of Representatives, a senator representing the district and the Deputy Governor. Such political influence should ordinarily translate into stronger engagement between elected officials and citizens, not greater distance between them.
Hon. Ali Isa represents a constituency whose people have every reason to expect accessible leadership. He has served in the House of Representatives and remains a major political figure in the area, with supporters crediting him with infrastructure and constituency interventions. Yet public service is judged not only by projects commissioned but also by how leaders respond to criticism, dissent and public questioning.
Criticism Is Not Disloyalty
Manasa Mailafiya’s criticism of the lawmaker, particularly concerning the budget, falls within the ordinary currency of democratic life. A constituent who questions budget priorities, constituency engagement or the conduct of a representative is not an enemy of the state. He is performing the civic function that representative democracy requires.
Section 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria guarantees every person freedom of expression, including the right to hold opinions and impart ideas and information without interference.
That right is not absolute: it does not protect defamation, incitement, false allegations or unlawful publications. But neither does it disappear because the person being criticised holds elective office.
The distinction is fundamental. Criticism may be harsh, embarrassing or politically damaging. Defamation involves false statements of fact that injure a person’s reputation, while incitement involves urging others to engage in unlawful acts. These are not interchangeable concepts.
A lawmaker, of all people, should understand that the remedy for alleged defamation is a lawful claim before a competent court, not pressure, fear or the apparent mobilisation of public institutions against a critic.
Due Process Must Not Be Optional
The most troubling aspect of the matter is the reported uncertainty surrounding Mr Mailafiya’s whereabouts and claims that unidentified persons, possibly police officers, were looking for him.
If the police have a lawful basis to invite a citizen, the proper course is straightforward: identify themselves, state the reason for the invitation, communicate through verifiable channels and comply with due process.
No Nigerian should be expected to surrender his liberty, safety or peace of mind to unidentified persons merely because rumours suggest they are security agents. The Constitution requires that a person who is arrested be promptly informed, in a language he understands, of the nature of the allegation against him.
Transparency is not a favour to a suspect; it is a constitutional safeguard for every citizen.
If there is credible evidence that Mr Mailafiya committed an offence, the police may investigate professionally and impartially. If Hon. Ali Isa believes his reputation has been injured, the courts remain open to him.
However, where a complaint appears to arise from political criticism, security agencies must exercise exceptional care. The line between law enforcement and political intimidation must never be blurred.
The reported petition to Mr Mailafiya’s workplace raises a separate concern. A citizen’s employment should not become a convenient instrument for punishing political expression. If there is genuine evidence of professional misconduct, the employer or relevant disciplinary authority should examine it fairly, independently and in accordance with established rules.
However, the selective invocation of workplace disciplinary procedures against a public critic creates a dangerous precedent. It suggests that citizens may speak freely only when their views please those in power. That is incompatible with democratic representation.
The same principle applies to uniformed personnel. Public officers and security personnel retain constitutional rights, subject to lawful restrictions applicable to their offices. If uniformed citizens may support a politician without their support automatically being treated as misconduct, criticism of that politician cannot automatically be regarded as a violation of professional ethics. Rules must be applied consistently, not selectively.
Insecurity Must Not Be Overshadowed by Political Controversy
The controversy also distracts from an urgent public responsibility: insecurity.
Reports that criminal elements attacked a village in Kalmai and burnt homes should command the full attention of every public official in the constituency. Communities need visible action: investigation, arrests, prosecution, protection and honest communication from those elected to serve them.
Security institutions should be deployed to protect lives and property, not to manage political embarrassment. Every complaint deserves due process, but the state’s coercive power must be directed first and foremost at violent crime, not at citizens who ask uncomfortable questions.
Hon. Ali Isa has the right to defend his reputation. He also has a duty to demonstrate that criticism does not make a constituent a target. The mature response to an offensive video is not intimidation; it is clarification, engagement, legal remedies where justified and confidence in one’s record.
A representative who cannot tolerate criticism misunderstands representation. Democracy does not require constituents to praise their leaders. It requires leaders to remain accountable to their constituents, even when accountability arrives in the form of harsh words, difficult questions or unflattering videos.
For Balanga/Billiri, and Gombe South generally, the message must be clear: the police should perform their duties professionally; the courts should determine legal disputes; employers should handle workplace matters fairly; and citizens should be free to speak without fear.
Public office is temporary. The rule of law, the dignity of the citizen and the right to dissent must endure.
Cliff Stanley
Political Scientist and Public Theologian
Email: Cliffstanley3@gmail.com
Phone: 07032826319