By Okechukwu Ajoku
Owerri Zone
History shows that many of Nigeria’s most sensitive administrative questions are not resolved through confrontation, protest, or litigation. They are resolved through review.
This is where ARM — Administrative Review Mechanism — becomes central to understanding the Ohaji situation.
ARM is not protest.
It is not litigation.
It is not political rebellion.
It is a recognised governance process through which governments examine inherited administrative arrangements that emerged through practice rather than law, and determine whether they still reflect reality, inclusion, and long-term stability.
Why ARM Fits the Ohaji Case
The Ohaji issue is not constitutional. Zoning itself is not created by the Nigerian Constitution. It evolved informally over time as a political tool to manage elections, appointments, and power-sharing.
Ohaji’s current zonal classification did not arise from legislation, a referendum, or a historical reassessment. It emerged through administrative convenience and was later reinforced by repetition. What hardened it was habit, not law.
That makes Ohaji’s situation a classic candidate for administrative review.
ARM exists precisely for situations like this—where an arrangement has endured long enough to appear permanent, even though it was never formally decided.
Administrative Review Is a Normal Tool of Governance
Across Nigeria, administrative reviews have been used to adjust constituencies, reclassify institutions, realign agencies, and correct inherited structural anomalies—without public conflict and without constitutional amendment.
Such reviews are not admissions of error. They are acknowledgements that governance is dynamic, and that inherited arrangements must sometimes be re-examined to preserve legitimacy and trust.
Seen in this light, ARM is not exceptional. It is orthodox governance.
Review Is Not Weakness
Some critics mistake review for retreat. In governance, the opposite is true.
Governments review policies, boundaries, and classifications not because they are weak, but because societies evolve and inherited assumptions require reassessment. ARM allows government to correct misalignment without drama, without confrontation, and without loss of authority.
It provides a calm, procedural pathway that protects stability while aligning structure with lived reality.
Why ARM Is Better Than Protest or Court Action
Court battles harden positions.
Public confrontation polarises communities.
ARM lowers the temperature.
Through administrative review, government can examine records, consult quietly, and adjust classifications without public crisis. This approach has been used repeatedly across Nigeria to resolve sensitive governance questions that courts or protests would only inflame.
ARM does not announce blame. It announces balance.
What ARM Does Not Mean
ARM does not imply mass boundary changes, nor does it threaten existing political arrangements across Imo State. It is case-specific, evidence-driven, and limited to correcting identifiable misalignments.
Reviewing Ohaji’s classification does not diminish any zone. It strengthens governance by ensuring that administrative practice reflects historical context and lived alignment.
For the avoidance of doubt, administrative review does not override elected authority, party processes, or judicial outcomes. It does not compel government to reach a predetermined conclusion. It simply creates a lawful space for facts, records, and historical context to be examined calmly before decisions are taken.
Government retains full discretion. ARM does not dictate outcomes—it restores process.
Why Stability Depends on Review
Stability is not sustained by silence alone. Communities that participate faithfully in governance but feel structurally misaligned eventually lose confidence in political systems—not out of hostility, but out of distance.
ARM prevents that erosion. It allows concerns to be examined before they harden into grievance. In this sense, review is not a disruption of stability; it is its safeguard.
The Responsible Path Forward
Ohaji requires administrative clarity.
ARM provides that clarity.
For Imo State, embracing administrative review is not concession. It is responsible governance—an affirmation that political structures exist to serve people, not to fossilise assumptions.
This call for review is not tied to any election cycle or party interest. It is about structural clarity.
In the long run, states remain stable not by defending inherited arrangements unexamined, but by periodically reviewing them in the light of history, inclusion, and reality.
That is what ARM offers.
That is why it matters in the Ohaji conversation.
