Rivers Elders Reject Tinubu’s Intervention, Say Decisions Executive Rascality

Rivers State elders and leaders including a former Governor, Chief Rufus Ada-George, and former Deputy Governor,  Gabriel Toby, have rejected President Bola Tinubu’s intervention in the political crisis rocking the state.

The elders expressed worry that the intervention may have worsened the crisis in the state.

They stated this in a communiqué read to newsmen after an emergency meeting on Tuesday in Port Harcourt, the state capital, in response to the presidential directive aimed at resolving the political crisis in the state.

Read also: Rivers Lawmakers Withdraw Impeachment Notice Against Fubara

They said though they had previously called on the President to intervene in the feud between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike and the state Governor, Siminialayi Fubara, they are at a loss as to whether his ‘intervention has solved the problem or escalated it’.

The communiqué was signed by former military administrators of the state, Godwin Abbey and Ibim Princewill, former spokesman of the Pan Niger Delta Forum, Chief Sara-Igbe, second Republic Senator, Bennett Birabi, and Niger Delta activist, Ms. Annkio Briggs, among others.

The elders, according to the communiqué, said Tinubu’s directives for the resolution of the political impasse in the state contravened the constitution which he swore to uphold at all times.

It reads, “The directives unilaterally suspended the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by virtue of an attempt to reverse a court order recognising Edison Ehie as the speaker and directing that the remainder of members of the House of Assembly constituted the quorum for legislative business.

“That the directive also contravenes the hallowed doctrine and practice of separation of lowers, particularly as it affects the responsibility of the judiciary.

“Can Mr President or the executive arm of government overrule the decisions of courts of competent jurisdiction?

“This portends executive rascality which undermines our constitutional democracy, rule of law and good governance.

“The directives to the parties were one-sided in favour of Chief  Nyesom Wike, the  Minister of the Federal Capital Territory and at the detriment of the Governor, Siminialayi Fubara, and the good people of Rivers State.

“In the eyes of the law and due process, as evidenced by the Rivers State High Court decision, Martins Amaewhule and his team have ceased to exist in the state House of Assembly having defected to another political party, and therefore cannot be reinstated and remunerated through the back door.

“It is the duty of the xxecutive arm of government to provide accommodation for legislators in a constitutional democracy as exemplified by the FCT minister with respect to the National Assembly.

“It is therefore, hypocritical to suggest, that the Rivers State House of Assembly under Martins Amaewhule could sit anywhere of their choice, whereas, in Abuja, it is the FCT Minister, on behalf of the executive arm that provides accommodation for federal legislators”

They also argued that the directive to re-present the budget passed and signed into law is an attempt to ridicule and denigrate the office of the governor and the good people of the state, including the judiciary.

They added, “In public administration parlance, a person can exit service either by resignation, sack, voluntary retirement or death. It is therefore preposterous for the President to direct that the people who have exited service for personal reasons be re-absorbed.

“The Forum enjoined all responsible citizens of Rivers State to rise up in this our moment of truth, to salvage the soul of Rivers State. Our fathers fought for the creation of Rivers State, we will stand to defend it.

“When injustice and criminality become law and a way of life in the polity, resistance becomes a duty.

“Finally, the Forum condemns in its entirety, the directives for the resolution of the political crisis in Rivers State. Nigeria is a constitutional democracy where only the courts can order the reversal of acts done or carried out under the provisions of the law.

“Therefore any resolution or directive that intends to undermine the principle of separation of powers and the rule of law is unacceptable, null and void and will be resisted, using all constitutional means at our disposal.”