It is one thing to say that the recruitment was conducted in phases, with separate lists for the Officer Cadre, Marshal Inspectorate and Marshal Assistant categories
By Elijah Ugani
·
Published on September 9, 2026
·
4 min read
I have read the explanation concerning the recently published FRSC recruitment list, and I think it is important that we approach the matter with both fairness and caution.
I read what my friend and brother Denis Inakefe wrote where he mentioned that the commissioner for Wealth Creation had made some clarifications. I had initially refused to join that conversation on grounds that the commissioner should issue a formal statement to the effect to enable us initiate meaningful conversation.
But my friend Efio-Ita Nyok has drawn my attention to Denis post by tagging me. It is on the forgoing that I’m reacting.
First, I commend the Commissioner for Wealth Creation, Mr. Paddy Egbede, for making efforts to obtain information and provide some clarifications, particularly at a time when the publication of the list has generated questions and concerns among Cross Riverians. His effort to douse tension is appreciated.
However, some of the issues raised in the explanation require further clarification. It is one thing to say that the recruitment was conducted in phases, with separate lists for the Officer Cadre, Marshal Inspectorate and Marshal Assistant categories. If that is the case, then it is only reasonable for the public to await the subsequent lists before drawing a final conclusion about the overall representation of Cross River State.
At the same time, statements concerning the allocation of 30 slots to Cross River State, the 28 candidates who reportedly emerged successful, alleged falsification of height, discrepancies in qualifications, failure to attend screening, inaccessible emails and network challenges should ideally be backed by official records.
This is not necessarily to dispute the information provided by the Commissioner. Rather, it is a call for transparency. Where public concerns have arisen, the best way to address them is with facts that can be independently understood and verified.
For instance, it would be helpful if Commissioner through the relevant authorities could clarify,
- The total number of Cross River indigenes who applied for the Officer Cadre, broken down by Local Government Area.
- The number of applicants who were invited for screening and interview.
- The number who actually participated in the exercise.
- The number disqualified and the specific, broad categories of disqualification.
- The number allegedly found to have provided false information, particularly regarding height or academic qualifications.
- The basis upon which the 30 slots were allocated to Cross River State and how the 28 successful candidates were determined.
- And, importantly, whether the 28 names published adequately reflect the Federal Character and geographical spread applicable to the State.
These are legitimate questions, and asking them should not automatically be interpreted as political mischief or an attempt to discredit the Governor or the Commissioner.
Similarly, those criticising the list should also exercise restraint. We should not assume that the publication of the first list represents the entirety of Cross River State’s recruitment opportunity when we have been told that other cadres are yet to be published.
The fairest position, therefore, is neither to condemn the process prematurely nor to accept every explanation without scrutiny.
Let the facts speak. If the process was transparent, compliant with Federal Character requirements and produced the best-qualified candidates from the available pool, then the publication of the relevant records will only strengthen the position of the Commissioner, the Governor and the entire administration.
And if there are legitimate concerns, transparency will equally help to identify and address them.
Cross Riverians deserve neither political propaganda nor unnecessary suspicion. We deserve facts, fairness and accountability.
I therefore encourage the Commissioner to make an official statement on the matter, with as much verifiable information as can reasonably be made public. That would go a long way in resolving the controversy and restoring confidence in the process.
Let us disagree responsibly, ask legitimate questions and allow superior facts, not political sentiments to prevail.
Elijah Ugani
Public Affairs Analyst and Commentator
Community Mobilzer and Social Change Agent
He writes from the Hills of Ukwortung
