Comments by Paulin Akponna in Parakou: what reactions for the Republican Bloc?
Last weekend in Parakou, Minister Paulin Akponna spoke out, not to boast about ongoing projects, but to denounce a latent scandal. In front of citizens exasperated by the lack of water and electricity, he mentioned a “siphoning off of the national budget” of several tens of billions, which he describes as “criminal”. In his sights, a disastrous management of the Ministry of Water and Mines, formerly led by Séidou Adambi. A name he did not mention, but everyone recognized. And this is where the discomfort begins because both men are members of the same party of the presidential movement, the Republican Bloc (BR).

Last weekend in Parakou, Minister Paulin Akponna spoke out, not to boast about ongoing projects, but to denounce a latent scandal. In front of citizens exasperated by the lack of water and electricity, he mentioned a “siphoning off of the national budget” of several tens of billions, which he describes as “criminal”. In his sights, a disastrous management of the Ministry of Water and Mines, formerly led by Séidou Adambi. A name he did not mention, but everyone recognized. And this is where the discomfort begins because both men are members of the same party of the presidential movement, the Republican Bloc (BR).
This June 21 in Parakou, the exercise carried out by Minister Akponna appears as a political denunciation under an official banner. He clearly reminded that he was the Minister-Advisor in charge of economic affairs, appointed on the same basis as other Minister-Advisors, and was therefore speaking as a representative of the central power. He even mentioned having mobilized the relevant departmental and regional directors to provide concrete solutions. Therefore, it is difficult to argue that he was speaking only as a political activist.
Therefore, it was under his hat as Minister of Energy, Water and Mines that he made this speech. But in this official discourse, a political charge slipped in, a direct criticism of the figures of the movement who, according to him, sabotaged the regime’s efforts and betrayed President Talon’s trust. This double register – technical and activist – makes his speech even more powerful.
Especially since the situation reminds cruelly of the PPEA II scandal under Boni Yayi. Between 2013 and 2015, a program financed to the tune of 43.6 billion FCFA had seen several billion disappear, revealing systemic flaws in the management of public funds. Sanctions had been announced, but in the end, no one was convicted. By using the term “siphoning”, Akponna activates in people’s minds this collective memory of impunity, and suggests that a “PPEA II bis” is currently being played out – this time under the Talon era.
What reaction for the BR
Kègnidé Paulin Akponna, who was appointed in January 2025, would have received an unofficial mission from Patrice Talon at the head of the Ministry of Energy, Water, and Mines. According to some sources, he would have been mandated to examine the management acts of his predecessor against the backdrop of a presidential desire to curb Adambi’s ambitions, potentially in line for 2026. It would therefore be naive to think that Akponna improvised this attack as the shockwave generated by his remarks exceeds the mere quarrel between two personalities. By denouncing the management of a member of his own party, Akponna also exposes the Republican Bloc to an internal crisis. On one hand, the moral line, which would want the party to support the transparency approach. On the other hand, the logic of party solidarity, which would lead to protecting its members to avoid fragmentation.
Can the BR maintain balance without appearing either complicit or divided?
Did Akponna betray his camp by throwing a comrade under the bus? Or did he simply take responsibility by revealing facts that everyone knew but dared not name? The question divides. In a pre-election context, where the party’s image and cohesion are as important as field results, this affair falls at the worst possible time. But it also reveals a larger fracture than that between a discourse of rupture displayed by the regime, and the persistence of old practices in the administration’s workings.