Group Condemns Attempts To ‘Rewrite History’ Of South East Development Commission

Coalition of South East Youths for Democracy (CESYD) has vehemently criticised what it described as attempts to “rewrite history” regarding the creation of the South East Development Commission (SEDC).

CESYD accused some individuals of making misleading statements about the origins and passage of the SEDC bill, which was recently signed into law by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

Comrade Wisdom Akunna Fabulous, coordinator of CESYD, stated, “We would not accept that individuals consciously make attempts at rewriting very recent histories. No, we would not allow such heretic deceptions aimed at hoodwinking the mass of the people of Nigeria and insulting our sensibilities.”

The group particularly took issue with what they perceived as attempts to diminish the role played by the deputy speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Okezie Kalu, in shepherding the SEDC bill through the legislative process.

CESYD provided a detailed timeline of the bill’s journey through both houses of the National Assembly, emphasizing Kalu’s sponsorship and leadership in its passage.

RELATED

Police Roll Out Massive Security Measures For July 12 Local Gov’t Elections In Lagos

2 hours ago

We’ll Build On Buhari’s Legacy, Reform Agenda — Tinubu

4 hours ago

“It is no secret that the Rt. Hon. Benjamin Okezie Kalu, Deputy Speaker House of Representatives, has lavished profound gratitude to our President and Commander-in-Chief, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for signing the SEDC bill. These are researchable and verifiable facts laced with empirical evidences,” the statement reads.

CESYD’s statement underscores the significance of the SEDC’s establishment, framing it as a “timely corrective measure” to address long-standing concerns about marginalization in the South East region.

The group affirmed their support for Deputy Speaker Kalu, praising his efforts to “put Igbo issues and interest ahead of selfish or parochial interest(s).”

It characterized attempts to undermine Kalu’s contributions as a “labour in vain.”