Israel Umoh
In 2014, some people accused then Accountant-General, Udo Isobara of embezzling Internal Generated Revenue. Though the specific amount was not stated, some local tabloids bantered with fictitious N6 billion or more to score cheap political points. The ignorant reporters did not know that revenue accounts have no cheque books for withdrawal of money.
Based on this, then Governor summoned senior staffers of the state Accountant-General Office, Uyo for questioning. The story was investigated and found to be untrue, though the blackmailers had gone viral. At the end, the allegation seen as unfounded and a figment of the peddlers’ imagination was dismissed.
Surprisingly, the administration of former Governor Udom Emmanuel and Pastor Umo Eno maintained and is still maintaining the revenue accounts without cheque books for withdrawal of money, except by the banking electronic system to the one in government account which is seen by everybody.
Related News:
- The Pawns Called NLC, PENGASSAN
- Nigerian Civil War: Minorities, not only Igbos were victims – Discussants
- Natasha’s Sedative and other Nigerians
However, this was the mother of all blackmails as it was politically motivated against Akpabio administration and Office of the state Accountant-General.
Consequently, the governor exonerated Udo Isobara, the Accountant -General of financial malfeasance and promoted him as a Permanent Secretary in the state Civil Service.
Despite other petitions and blackmails, Akpabio and his associates consistently dismissed allegations as “cheap blackmail,” “frivolous,” and “manufactured controversies” designed to tarnish his reputation and distract him from governance.
He called for transparency in the handling of petitions, asking the EFCC to publish reports of all investigated high-profile petitions, especially those found to be politically motivated.
In 2023, reacting to an allegation of “N1 trillion fraud,” his Chief Press Secretary, Jackson Udom stated that the accusations were part of a “plot … to blackmail him out of contest for the presidency of 10th Senate.”
Earlier, in his role as governor, the Akwa Ibom State Government (via its Commissioner for Information), had accused unnamed politicians of waging a “smear campaign … to rubbish the governor …”
Then enter 2025, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan accused Senator Akpabio, the 10th Senate President of sexual harassment, assassination attempt and organ harvesting. Eventually, Dr. Sandra Duru also known as Prof Mgbe took Natasha to tatters and exposed her evil mission.
After the unsuccessful move, Pat, wife of Ibanga Akpabio entered the frail and spewed personal allegations spiced with hatred and unfounded rumours against Akpabio in the social media. The unsuccessful rubbishing of Akpabio’s image is, nonetheless, a sponsored job and a calculated attempt to distract him from his busy schedule and of course the 2027 re-election bid.
Yet, the accuser-in-chief who sojourns in United States is unable to evidentially prove the spewed allegations. This is seen as another scandalous but yeoman’s job to draw undue attention to herself at the detriment of Greater Akpabio Family , which she belonged but has purportedly denounced her membership and affiliation.
The ring of blackmail spread to the administration of Mr. Udom Emmanuel who ruled Akwa Ibom from 2015 -2023. He was petitioned by a group, Network against Corruption and Trafficking, to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), accusing him of committing N700 billion fraud while he was governor.
However, Governor Umo Eno of Akwa Ibom State dismissed as “false” the allegation that his predecessor, Udom Emmanuel, was involved in a N700 billion fraud while he served as governor.
Emmanuel chose not to “dignify failure with attention” by engaging directly with “attention-seeking blackmailers,” preferring instead to focus on his administration’s work and achievements.
He advised the people of Akwa Ibom to be wary of politicians who use blackmail and violence to attain power, emphasizing that power comes from divine providence, not political mudslinging.
His supporters and allies, including the current governor, have defended him by dismissing claims as untrue and politically motivated, arguing that vilification of past leaders discourages public service.
When faced with petitions leading to his arrest by the EFCC after leaving office, he reportedly honored the commission’s invitation to respond to the allegations.
That may reflect limited digitization or archival coverage from his period (1999–2007).
Several reports (e.g., by Vanguard and Independent) cite his media assistant, Barrister Steven Abia, calling corruption allegations by a group called Network Against Corruption and Trafficking (NACAT) “malicious and baseless,” and describing the group as “faceless … blackmail[ers] to extort money from politicians.”
Also, a Vanguard report quoted Udom’s Commissioner for Works (Ephraim Inyang) saying that smear campaigns against Emmanuel were politically motivated: “some persons have embarked on a smear campaign … because he refused their insatiable plan to continue looting the state
Today, Akwa Ibom faces not just political opposition- a healthy part of democracy- but a persistent ecosystem of orchestrated misinformation.
Political observers trace this rise to a blend of heightened political contestation, rising digital access, and a thriving cottage industry of content creators willing to trade integrity for visibility. With smartphones and anonymous pages, the barrier to entry is low; the returns – attention, influence, or political bargaining power – are high.
The anatomy of modern blackmail in Akwa Ibom often follows a predictable pattern: First comes a sensational accusation – frequently unsupported by evidence but packaged in emotionally charged language. Then comes rapid amplification by pseudo-activist pages and anonymous commentators who lend the illusion of widespread outrage.
Beyond the political noise, the consequences are far-reaching. Blackmail erodes public trust, distracts from genuine issues, and creates a climate of fear around public service. Many government workers privately admit that the fear of being targeted by false claims is now a part of their daily reality.
More worrying is the chilling effect on public discourse. Genuine critics – those who care about governance and accountability- risk being drowned out by the loud machinery of fake narratives. The result is a shrinking space for serious conversation.
Whether the state’s information environment can be reclaimed depends on how citizens, media actors, and political leaders respond to this growing menace. What remains clear is that blackmail has become a dominant – and dangerous – fixture in Akwa Ibom’s public discourse.
The question now is whether society will continue to allow orchestrated falsehood to shape its political future, or whether it will insist on a return to facts, reason, and responsible engagement to ehnace the growth and development of the society.
Concluded
