Reps Do Not Sell Contracts: Boniface Adie Urged to Halt False Allegations Against Hon. Peter Akpanke

By Clement Abuo
Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 BCE), the celebrated Roman orator, lawyer, statesman, and philosopher, once noted that “as fire, when thrown into water, is cooled and extinguished, so also a false accusation, when brought against a man of pure and holy character, boils over, dissipates, and vanishes.

”
This enduring insight aptly reflects the baseless and misleading allegations recently directed at Hon. Peter Akpanke. Falsehoods, regardless of how loudly they are proclaimed or how often they are repeated, cannot override truth, integrity, and a record of honorable conduct.
It is therefore unsurprising that the accusations against Hon. Peter Akpanke crumbled under minimal scrutiny. No reasonable or impartial observer can take seriously claims advanced by an individual who openly admits to fraudulent conduct, only to paradoxically present himself as a victim. Such internal contradictions immediately erode the credibility of the allegations.
For the avoidance of doubt, members of the House of Representatives—like their counterparts in the Senate—do not sell contracts. They neither own contracts nor bid for or execute them. Their constitutional responsibility is limited to nominating constituency projects, after which relevant ministries, departments, and agencies oversee procurement and execution in accordance with established procedures. Any assertion to the contrary is either a product of ignorance or a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Against this background, serious questions arise regarding Boniface Adie’s motivation for rushing to the public space with such poorly constructed claims. He openly admitted to giving out money to “buy” contracts, without considering the legal, moral, or logical implications of such an admission. It is difficult to understand how one can confess to an act of corruption and simultaneously seek public sympathy. More puzzling still is the claim of purchasing what a legislator neither owns nor controls.
Boniface Adie further sought to elicit public sympathy by drawing Hon. Peter Akpanke into a personal family tragedy, referencing the illness and eventual death of his brother. While he acknowledged that Hon. Akpanke expressed concern and reached out, he nonetheless argued that the Honourable Member was obligated to bear the full medical expenses simply by virtue of representing the constituency. This argument reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the role and responsibilities of a legislator.
A member of the House of Representatives cannot reasonably be expected to resolve every personal challenge faced by constituents while simultaneously fulfilling legislative obligations—participating in debates, sponsoring bills, raising motions, and advocating development initiatives. Such expectations are unrealistic and unreasonable.
Notwithstanding these limitations, Hon. Peter Akpanke has consistently exceeded his constitutional mandate. He has organized general health outreaches across his constituency, providing free medical services to individuals with serious health challenges who cannot afford basic care. Those requiring treatment have received assistance, while others in need of medication support have been helped financially. These interventions, though not mandated by law, have been undertaken voluntarily and with genuine compassion.
It is therefore unfair and misleading to suggest that Hon. Peter Akpanke must personally shoulder every hardship faced by every constituent.
In what appears to be an act of desperation, Boniface Adie went as far as urging a television station, during a live broadcast, to contact the wife of Hon. Peter Akpanke to explain an alleged contractual transaction. This raises a fundamental question: since when do contractual dealings between two consenting adults require spousal interrogation—especially on live television? Such conduct underscores a preference for sensationalism and blackmail over truth and ethical standards.
Boniface Adie attempted to justify this action by claiming that Hon. Peter Akpanke was unreachable. This claim is disingenuous, given that he was fully aware of the Honourable Member’s office address and had, by his own admission, contacted him repeatedly, sometimes through his aide. The decision of the television station to proceed with the broadcast despite knowing that Hon. Akpanke was unavailable raises serious ethical concerns. Should Hon. Akpanke later establish his innocence conclusively, the question remains: how does one repair the reputational damage caused by such premature and one-sided accusations?
Equally concerning is Boniface Adie’s assertion that he was approached to buy contracts to fund an election campaign following an unsuccessful bid for local government chairman. He claimed this approach was made by an individual identified as “Charlie Emeji,” allegedly an aide to Hon. Peter Akpanke. However, there is no such person serving as an aide to the Honourable Member, a fact that further undermines the credibility of the entire narrative.
Moreover, Boniface Adie admitted that the alleged meeting took place without Hon. Peter Akpanke’s presence. This raises the strong possibility of impersonation with intent to extort, as anyone can falsely claim to represent a public office holder for personal gain.
Boniface Adie must therefore reconcile his contradictory statements. In one instance, he claimed to have paid money to buy contracts; in another, he stated the funds were meant to facilitate contracts. These assertions are mutually inconsistent and unsupported by verifiable evidence. As already established, members of the House of Representatives neither own nor sell contracts and cannot facilitate what lies outside their authority.
A more prudent approach would have been to seek peaceful and amicable resolution of any perceived grievance, rather than engaging in a smear campaign driven by speculation, inconsistencies, and apparent political motives.
As elections draw nearer, it is not uncommon for political opponents to grasp at straws in an attempt to discredit perceived threats. Unfortunately, individuals of weak judgment sometimes allow themselves to be used as instruments in such schemes, amplifying narratives designed to mislead the public.
Hon. Peter Akpanke remains a committed, diligent, and hardworking representative of the Obudu/Bekwara/Akamkpa (OBA) Federal Constituency. He has consistently raised motions in the House and championed policies aimed at improving the welfare of his constituents, who continue to express satisfaction with his representation.
He has implemented numerous constituency projects focused on infrastructure development and improved living standards across OBA. In the education sector, his interventions include scholarships, sponsorship of JAMB forms, renovation of classrooms, and other impactful initiatives.
It is only fair and reasonable to allow Hon. Peter Akpanke to continue the work for which the people entrusted him with their mandate.
Boniface Adie is therefore urged to desist from lending himself as a tool of blackmail for political actors nursing failed ambitions and plotting ahead of 2027.
Clement Abuo is an Abuja-based public affairs analyst and commentator. He can be reached at clemabuo@gmail.com.