By Omorodion Omoregie
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
— Adolf Hitler
This chilling quote from Hitler’s Mein Kampf is often cited as a stark reminder of how deceit, when repeated confidently and consistently, can manipulate perception and overshadow truth. It serves as a cautionary reflection on the power of lying with a straight face.
By attempting to pass himself off as a detached observer while penning a groveling apologia for Governor Monday Okpebholo, John Mayaki’s article, “BVAS IREV on Trial in Edo,” does little more than parade the very contradictions, ironies, and projections that define the APC’s floundering position at the Edo Election Tribunal.
It might have been wiser not to dignify John Mayaki’s piece with a response, lest it grant unwarranted validation to his transparent attempt at self-rehabilitation within the ranks of the APC. However, the sheer brazenness of his distortions and the ridiculous falseness of his claims demand correction, if only to prevent such misleading narratives from going unchallenged. Silence in the face of such drivel would risk allowing his fabrications to fester unchecked, and the truth must be defended, knowing that a lie has many variations, the truth none.
Let us examine the glaring issues:
Mayaki’s self-serving amnesia begins with an ill-fated attempt to dismiss the PDP’s evidentiary triumphs, particularly their use of BVAS and IREV data, claiming it is inconsequential based on previous court rulings. Yet, he conveniently ignores the APC’s own reliance on the same technologies to validate electoral outcomes in other cases, including their jubilant celebrations over BVAS data during the Osun election when it served their interests.
Is this not the same APC that heralded BVAS and IREV as proof of “transparency” during campaigns, only to pivot to dismissiveness when the data exposes their alleged malpractices? The irony is hard to miss: technologies they lauded are now a threat, and Mayaki is left to argue against their credibility, hoping no one notices the contradiction.
In embracing the judiciary as a convenient ally, Mayaki’s newfound reverence for judicial independence and precedent reeks of opportunism. When his political allies benefited from court decisions, the judiciary was hailed as the guardian of democracy. Yet, when the PDP calls for the same courts to ensure transparency, Mayaki brands it “blackmail” and “pressure.”
This convenient double standard not only undermines his argument but reveals the APC’s real fear: that the Kpochi-led three member tribunal panel is operating without interference. For a man who claims to respect judicial independence, Mayaki seems signally unperturbed by reports of thugs being mobilized to disrupt court proceedings—a glaring hypocrisy.
Projection and fear mongering run right through Mayaki’s piece. His accusation that the PDP is sowing “doubt and confusion” is laughable given the APC’s visible desperation. Intelligence reports of plans to disrupt the tribunal, attack key figures, and destroy evidence are well-documented. Meanwhile, APC chieftains like Jarrett Tenebe openly disdain the capacity of security forces to restrain them.
If anyone is undermining public confidence in democracy, it is the APC’s camp, with its thuggery, intimidation, and reliance on brute force to sway outcomes. Mayaki’s attempt to paint the PDP as the aggressor is a classic case of projection—attributing to others the sins of one’s own side.
Replete with misguided historical comparisons, Mayaki’s references to judicial precedents, such as Oyetola v. Adeleke and Jegede v. INEC, as a shield for the APC’s troubles is as misplaced as it is misleading. Each case was determined on its specific facts, not vague generalizations about BVAS or IREV data.
Meanwhile, as the hearings continue, the PDP has presented overwhelming evidence of malpractices, backed by INEC’s duly and undeniably certified documents, which remain unchallenged by the APC or for that matter INEC itself the issuing authority. Lest we forget, INEC is also a respondent in this petition. The notion that these precedents will save Governor Okpebholo ignores the fundamental principle of law: facts dictate outcomes.
Finally, Mayaki’s piece, a laughably obvious attempt to redeem himself is less about “educating friends” and more about currying favor with a governor he once ridiculed during the election. His thinly veiled plea for relevance is obvious, as he lavishes praise on Okpebholo while parroting weak arguments to defend the indefensible.
It is telling that Mayaki now preaches loyalty to a man he derided, hoping to secure his place in an albeit fleeting,stumbling, and faltering administration. His words reek of desperation—an echo of the APC’s current state in Edo.
In conclusion, John Mayaki’s article is an inglorious masterpiece of irony, contradictions, and projection. Far from offering a robust defense of APC’s position, it inadvertently highlights the party’s panic, hypocrisy, and lack of substance. While he accuses the PDP of blackmail and pressure, it is the APC that is deploying thugs, threatening violence, and dismissing the judiciary when the facts do not favor them.
Mayaki’s attempt to rewrite reality cannot mask the truth: the APC is unraveling, and Edo’s people are witnessing the crumbling of their desperate facade. His article, much like the APC’s case, will ultimately collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
The people of Edo can feel the hope in the air already. They know that Joy is Coming. Justice will prevail, no matter how many pens APC hires to distort the truth.
…. Omoregie, a public affairs analyst, writes from Benin City.
