The Oden Ewa Side of the Story About Mc Okrika invading Hotel 45 With Alleged Cultist

The public has taken notice of the videos circulated on Facebook by MC Okrika, containing serious allegations against Hon. Oden Ewa and Prince Ebutta Ayuk. In those videos, he claimed that Hon. Oden Ewa would not make a good Senator because Prince Ebutta Ojong had stated that those who were not part of the structures of a support group should not be invited. He further alleged that Prince Ebutta Ayuk is corrupt and noted that Hon. Oden Ewa, who did not even know him personally, responded to his demand for a water project in his community and gifted him ₦13 million—a feat that ordinarily should have been celebrated but was instead presented as a grievance.

For some time, these allegations were ignored. That decision was not an acceptance of the claims, but a deliberate refusal to allow every social media provocation to drag respected personalities into unnecessary controversy. Not every rabble-rouser deserves to be dignified, especially someone like MC Okrika, whose public conduct has raised serious questions about the basis upon which he seeks to pass judgment on others. Hence, public utterances should be guided by facts and responsibility, not by insults, speculation and sensational accusations.

The implications of these statements were reportedly raised during the stakeholders’ consultation in Etung, precisely at Prince Ebutta’s residence, where concerned leaders sought to address the tension created by the allegations. Yet, the most important question remains unanswered: what evidence exists to support these claims?

An allegation of corruption, financial misconduct or any other wrongdoing is a serious matter and should never be made casually without facts capable of independent verification. Yet, the leaders, led by the Chapter Chairman of the APC, reportedly passed a vote of confidence on the character of Prince Ebutta Ayuk, maintaining that such allegations should not be given relevance at all. Indeed, the matter would have remained a dead issue because nobody was interested in dignifying it.

However, earlier today, another event reportedly took place at Hotel 45, where MC Okrika was approached by some members of his fraternity and advised to seek better information and understand the rationale behind a meeting before making accusations against the person of Prince Ebutta Ayuk. This almost resulted in tension.

At the time of the incident, around 9:46 a.m., Hon. Oden Ewa was not present. He merely heard the voices raised loudly within the vicinity. His arrival was preceded by that of the DG, Homeland Security, Central, who intervened to ensure that nobody was molested.

But one fundamental question remains: Why did MC Okrika fail to report that members of his own fraternity allegedly bullied him? It was the uproar that eventually attracted the attention of Hon. Oden Ewa to the incident. Hon. Oden Ewa hitherto had no prepared plan to meet MC Okrika.

At the poolside, it became clear that MC Okrika did not have knowledge of what transpired in Ugep or what prompted Prince Ebutta to make the statement in question. He openly acknowledged that the details of the matter were not known to him. Those present at the poolside consequently advised him to stop bringing down the hard-earned reputation of leaders of Cross River State, especially when he had no evidence to support his claims.

At the point of interaction, MC Okrika was unable to provide verifiable evidence in support of some of the allegations he had made. This is precisely why the public must be careful about accepting every dramatic statement circulated on social media.

An accusation is not proof simply because it is repeated. A video is not evidence merely because it attracts attention.

At this point, MC Okrika feeling uncomfortable that he has goofed and should be freed from the heightened interaction, allegedly called men identified as members of the *Vikings fraternity* to the scene. The questions are therefore simple: Why did he call them? What role were they called to play? Who did he call them to confront or attack?

It was at this junction that a counter-response reportedly came from security personnel, particularly members of Homeland Security, who could not allow anyone to cause mayhem.

Indeed, in the words being used to describe the incident, “men of Vikings met men of Vikings, and they learnt how the work is done.”The incident subsequently became associated with what has been described as the “Obidi Junction .” Whatever interpretation people may attach to that expression, the fundamental question remains: Why were these individuals brought to the scene in the first place?

The individuals MC Okrika allegedly brought to the scene, according to the account, were not informed about the ₦13 million he reportedly received. Rather, they were allegedly called into a situation that created unnecessary tension and the possibility of violence.

Is this the kind of group MC Okrika believes can protect him from the consequences of the insults and blackmail he allegedly distributes across the state?

Whatever lessons emerged from the incident should serve as a reminder that violence and intimidation are not legitimate instruments of political disagreement or public engagement.

There is also a more recent allegation that Hon. Oden Ewa attempted to physically harm or inject MC Okrika. That claim is strongly disputed and, like every other serious allegation, requires credible evidence. Anyone making such an accusation must present facts capable of supporting it rather than relying on emotional narratives or claims intended to generate public sympathy.

With almost 50 people reportedly present within that geographical space, one must ask how such an incident could have occurred without credible witnesses or evidence. This allegation, therefore, raises further questions and appears, at least from the account presented, to be another attempt to attract public sympathy and attention.

If any confrontation occurred at the venue involving different individuals or groups, those circumstances should be properly investigated by the appropriate authorities. It would be wrong for anyone to use such an incident as a basis for attaching political responsibility to Hon. Oden Ewa without evidence that he was responsible for what happened.

MC Okrika should therefore be reminded that politics does not remove the obligation to speak responsibly. The right to express an opinion does not extend to making damaging allegations against individuals without being prepared to substantiate those claims.

If he has genuine and credible evidence against Hon. Oden Ewa or Prince Ebutta Ayuk, he should present such evidence openly and be ready to defend it before the appropriate authorities. But where evidence is unavailable, social media should not become a platform for damaging reputations, spreading unverified information or creating unnecessary tension among the people.

Hon. Oden Ewa should be assessed on the basis of his record, his vision, his preparation and his commitment to the people of Central Senatorial District—not through unsubstantiated allegations and social media drama.

The people of Central Senatorial District are capable of making their own judgments. They understand the difference between legitimate political criticism and deliberate attempts to damage someone’s reputation. Neither Hon. Oden Ewa nor Prince Ebutta Ayuk is above criticism, but criticism must remain rooted in facts, while allegations must be supported by evidence.

This is, therefore, a strong reminder to MC Okrika: Exercise restraint. Respect the truth. Recognise the responsibility that comes with making public statements. The measure you give is the measure you receive.

And while nobody should resort to violence, intimidation or unlawful conduct, MC Okrika must equally understand that provocative statements and unsubstantiated accusations have consequences and should not replace responsible public engagement.

Let politics be about ideas and competing visions for the people. Let evidence determine the truth. Let facts speak louder than propaganda. And let no one mistake responsible silence for weakness.

The people are watching, history is recording, and, in the end, the truth does not need drama to prevail. If MC Okrika genuinely believes that an attempt was made to inject or physically harm him, he should seek redress through the appropriate legal authorities and present his evidence before them. Where such evidence does not exist, the public is entitled to remain vigilant and continue demanding proof for every serious claim that is made.

Dr Usani Joseph Ofem
Reports from Hotel 45, Ikom