By Staff Writer
In a strongly worded rejoinder, public affairs analyst Umar D. Duhu has defended the work of the Harmonization Technical Committee chaired by Abdullahi Liman Tukur, dismissing criticisms by Umar Ardo as “allegations masquerading as analysis.”
Duhu, a legal scholar, argued that recent claims questioning the credibility and neutrality of the committee lack evidentiary grounding and fail to engage with the committee’s documented proceedings.
Debate Over Legitimacy
The controversy stems from criticisms by Dr. Ardo, who described himself as a “political barometer” and questioned the impartiality of the committee tasked with harmonizing interests within major political blocs.
However, Duhu countered that such critiques fall short of the standards of political and legal analysis.
“A barometer reads pressure; it does not create it,” he wrote, stressing that legitimacy must be challenged through verifiable records such as minutes, terms of reference, and outcomes—not personal profiles of committee members.
Impartiality ‘Proven by Record’
Defending the committee’s process, Duhu pointed to what he described as clear indicators of due process and neutrality. According to him, the committee:
- Published its mandate and held open sittings
- Received and documented submissions from various stakeholders
- Allowed dissenting opinions and minority reports
He argued that the absence of a predetermined beneficiary in the committee’s draft framework undermines claims of bias.
“A body engineered for partiality would produce a preferred outcome. This one did not,” he stated.
Rejecting ‘Elite Capture’ Claims
Duhu also dismissed assertions that the committee represents a narrow political interest group, describing such claims as “broad generalisations without proof.”
He noted that the committee comprises a mix of academics, technocrats, and political stakeholders, and emphasized that allegations of elite capture must be backed by concrete evidence such as voting patterns or documented coercion.
On Party Exit and Legal Rights
Addressing the resignation of Maurice Vunobolki, Duhu maintained that individual decisions cannot invalidate an entire process.
Citing Section 40 of the Nigerian Constitution, he reaffirmed the right to freedom of association but stressed that dissent had been anticipated and accommodated within the committee’s framework through provisions for minority reports.
Call for Greater Transparency
While expressing support for the committee’s work, Duhu proposed measures to strengthen public confidence and inclusivity, including:
- A stakeholders’ validation conference across local government areas
- Public disclosure of evaluation criteria and scoring systems
- Establishment of an independent appeal panel to address grievances
He argued that such steps would enhance both the credibility and acceptance of the harmonization process.
A Shift from Criticism to Reform
Duhu concluded by urging stakeholders to move beyond what he described as personality-driven critiques and instead focus on constructive reforms.
“A process is not partial because its members are known figures,” he stated. “It is partial only if it acts partially—and the available records do not support that claim.”
As political tensions continue to shape party alignments and internal negotiations, the debate underscores broader concerns about transparency, legitimacy, and trust in political processes.
News Rendezvous 
Leave a comment