Enugu State – Governor Peter Mbah has taken a U-turn by finally making appointments to Development Centres located in every local government area of the state. These appointments were supposed to have been made much earlier, yet they only materialized now, in the middle of the election campaign season. The sudden move has raised serious questions about timing, motive, and sincerity.

Rather than reflecting a genuine commitment to grassroots development, the decision appears driven by political pressure. Public discontent over the long delay had grown steadily, and many citizens openly expressed unhappiness with the administration’s handling of the matter. Faced with uncertainty about whether the people would still support him as expected, the governor moved to fill these positions in a bid to calm rising frustration and protect his political standing.

The appointments are widely seen as an attempt to amplify his second term ambition and secure victory in the 2027 election. With the Development Centre appointments in every local government area and naming people to run them at this critical moment, the governor seeks to project action and responsiveness. Yet the fact that these steps were postponed for so long and only taken when electoral calculations became urgent suggests that political survival, not service delivery, remains the primary driver.

Citizens are asking the obvious question. Why now, in the middle of the election campaign, and not when they could have begun meaningful work? The delay itself has already cost locals and communities valuable time that could have been used for real development. Making the appointments under pressure, with an eye on the 2027 ballot, does little to restore confidence that the process was guided by the public interest rather than personal political gain.

In the end, the sudden filling of these positions may temporarily ease some public anger, but it also exposes the gap between earlier inaction and present political necessity. Whether the newly appointed officials will deliver tangible results or simply serve as campaign tools remains to be seen. For many observers, the entire episode stands as another example of governance shaped more by electoral anxiety than by consistent leadership.