Rivers Crisis: Fubara’s Olive Branch With Comma
By Elempe Dele
On the 7th of March, 2025, the secretary to the Rivers State Government, SSG, wrote a melo-like letter on behalf of the Rivers State Government proposing a meeting with the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, the Rt Hon. Martin Amaewhule, and other honourable members of the House to a meeting at the Rivers State Government House. The initiative was appreciated by all and sundry because the effort might foster peace and good-working relationship between the governor and the 27 members of the house of assembly. On a personal level, I was super excited because this will signal a moment of possible mending of the ruptured relationship that has been on for over a year now.
However, I have some reservations after deep retrospection, and my views are political in nature. First, the relationship between the two arms of government should have been seen from the perspective of equals. The state governor would have personally authored the letter of invitation rather than litigating his SSG to sent it. Having just been evolving from a protracted battle for this long, which was eventually decided upon by the Supreme Court recently, that independent arm of government might take the invitation by the SSG as belittling. It should have been one head of an arm of government inviting the head of another arm of the same government. Again, the tonal value of the letter was too authoritative to be admitted into the halls of diplomatic reconciliation. In conflict resolution and diplomatic contrivances, the tonal values of meetings proposals is very important. I have read from some analysts that the governor wants to prove being smart by rail-roading the lawmakers into a cul de sac where the public will feel they are the aggressors if they refuse to honour the unexpected invitation. Yes, it is a possibility because what the lawmaker asked for within a time frame was for the governor to submit the 2025 budget to them for scrutiny unlike he did in 2024 where the budget was passed by ony 4 lawmakers.
Secondly, I think it is quiet too early in the course of their reconciliation for the governor to be talking about “provision of a befitting place for the Assembly’s sitting.” This should have been proposed during subsequent meetings when the frosty relationship had somewhat been mended or on demand by assembly members. So also is the issue of their renumeration or allowances they are due to get constitutionally without discussing it in the government house since the Supreme Court had given a final verdict in its recent ruling. What is there to discuss? To pay or not to pay?
Presenting the budget to the members of the House of Assembly as demanded by them anywhere they presently meet should not have been a matter of official discussion in government house as it is a constitutional matter, not a matter to be debated or discussed. There are no two ways to it apart from presenting it.
And lastly, I would have loved that the government maintain the ‘official’ relationship between the two arms of government because on the long run, it will profit the ordinary citizens of the state. It is an established fact that the informal relationship between governors and their houses of assembly leads to what we call ‘rubber stamp’ parliaments. They do the bidding of the governor in exchange for favours. They sign off budgets which are hugely padded. They compromise their oversight function. They become appendages of the executive arm of government thereby vapourizing the mantra of checks and balance.
So I suppose an official working relationship without the unnecessary hugging and patting of backs and shaking of hands in government house will be a great service to the people of Rivers State that had suffered immensely from the prolonged hostilities for the past one year or so. Whatever will vanquish the consequence of the unnecessary conflict must be a strategic agenda should be pursued with vigour.
