 |
Ukorebi Esien | May 15, 2026
CALABAR – Politics is often described as a game of numbers, alliances, and ambition. Yet beneath the calculations lies a deeper and often uncomfortable question: should loyalty count in politics? And if it should, how should that loyalty be recognized?
As conversations around future political alignments continue within the All Progressives Congress in Cross River State, one issue increasingly surfaces in some political circles: should those who supported a collective cause when it mattered most be remembered when opportunities emerge?
This is where what many supporters call “the Dansuki question” begins.
The build-up to the 2023 elections in Cross River was dominated by a powerful argument: power should return to the South. It was an appeal rooted in equity, fairness, and rotational politics, principles many believed had helped maintain political balance in the state over the years.
That argument eventually prevailed, culminating in the emergence of Bassey Edet Otu as governor.
But political victories often leave behind another important question:
Supporters of Daniel Asuquo, popularly known as Dansuki, argue that his actions during the 2023 electoral cycle reflected a level of political sacrifice that deserves recognition.
After unsuccessfully seeking the governorship ticket under the People's Democratic Party, supporters say he had options. With the rising momentum around the Labour Party and the growing popularity of the Obedient Movement in Cross River, some believe he could have pursued a governorship ambition under a different platform.
Instead, supporters argue, he chose to pursue the senatorial race, a decision they interpret as an attempt to avoid fragmenting Southern votes at a time when the governorship contest featured a Southern candidate in Prince Otu against Sandy Onor from Central Cross River.
To those who advance this argument, the calculation was straightforward:
Another strong Southern governorship candidacy under a different platform could have complicated the broader push to return power to the South.
Whether one agrees with this interpretation or not, supporters maintain that Dansuki subordinated a larger personal ambition to what he saw as a broader Southern political interest.
Yet they insist the story did not end there.
According to supporters and campaign narratives from that period, Dansuki reportedly continued to encourage support for Prince Otu’s governorship ambition throughout portions of his political engagements, despite pursuing his own senatorial ambition under another platform.
For supporters, this was more than strategy—it was loyalty.
And loyalty, they argue, should matter.
Politics everywhere runs partly on memory: who stood with whom, who built alliances, who supported difficult causes, and who remained committed when outcomes were uncertain.
This raises difficult but legitimate questions:
* Should political sacrifice count in future considerations?
* Should loyalty be rewarded alongside competence and electability?
* Should those who helped build coalitions be remembered when power is negotiated?
For many supporters of Dansuki, the answer is yes.
Their argument extends beyond loyalty into equity and representation. They point out that the Akamkpa/Biase axis has never produced a senator despite decades of participation in the state’s political process.
In their view, the conversation is therefore twofold:
First, about historical balance and inclusion
Second, about whether political loyalty and sacrifice should count when stakeholders assess future leadership choices*l.
Others may disagree and argue that political decisions should rest solely on performance, broad acceptability, and future prospects.
That debate is legitimate.
But the question remains:
When political history is written, should those who sacrificed ambition for a larger cause be remembered?
Because perhaps that is the real issue behind the Dansuki question:
In politics, does loyalty count—or only victory?
0 comments: