A recipe for lasting peace in Rivers State

Following the intervention of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on the political crisis in Rivers State, manifested in the rift between the former and the current governors of the state, it is important for all the feuding parties to ensure that the peace so brokered is not disrupted again. There were reports after the presidential intervention to suggest that all is still not well. By now, however, the gladiators ought to have picked crucial lessons for future guidance. The business of governance should continue for the benefit of the people particularly after the heat, even deaths, generated in the aftermath of the governorship election in March this year.

Signs of deep crack in government became noticeable following the split in the House of Assembly, with a faction of the lawmakers plotting to impeach Governor Siminalayi Fubara. This is unfortunate as the face-off is an ill wind that cannot blow the state any good and so should not be allowed to fester or reoccur. Likely consequences are that governance of Rivers will suffer, development will be hampered and the ordinary citizens of the state will bear the brunt.

Besides, the feud between the executive and the legislative arms of government may undermine the cordial relationship among the different ethnic groups in the state that are divided into riverine and upland communities. This is why parties in the crisis should have a rethink, bury their egos, return their swords to the sheaths, exhibit political maturity and settle their differences amicably.

It is good that Tinubu intervened in the face-off that is believed to be triggered by a cold war between Governor Fubara and former governor, Nyesom Wike, who is now the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) minister, and the state is now calm. The crisis erupted on October 30 when anti-Fubara lawmakers in the House of Assembly, numbering 24 in the 32-member legislative house, hurriedly removed the Majority Leader, Edinson Ehie, who is considered to be a major supporter of the governor. In what can be described as a counter-coup shortly after, Ehie was announced as the new speaker by the other lawmakers who are Fubara’s loyalists in the assembly at a plenary they held at the Government House.

Earlier on Sunday, October 29, the House of Assembly was reportedly bombed by suspected political thugs who were said to have gotten wind of the plan to impeach the governor, just about five months after coming into office, and decided to frustrate the move.

Not deterred by the bombing, the 24 anti-Fubara lawmakers led by the Speaker, Martin Amaewhule, gained access to the House of Assembly complex on Monday, October 30, gathered at an adjoining room to the chamber that was not affected by the bombing and held plenary. They removed Ehie and suspended four other lawmakers whom they accused of masterminding the bomb blast. Accusations and counter accusations by stakeholders held sway while the feud lasted.

What happened in Rivers and similar cases across the country only underscore the immaturity of the country’s political leaders, irrespective of their level of education and exposure. The frequent cases of war between incumbent governors and either their predecessors, deputies or local government chairmen is an indication that most of those in the corridor of power recycle themselves periodically under questionable elections and lack the character to occupy the offices in which they have found themselves. They constitute a danger to democracy.

Leadership is basically about development of the society such that the lives of the people are transformed and a better future is assured for all, including generations yet unborn. Development can only take place in an atmosphere of peace, mutual understanding and unity. At different times and locations, one shameful drama or the other, usually involving a governor and his deputy, predecessor or a local government, would come to the open during which greed, lack of character and patriotism would be dishearteningly advertised.

While disagreement is not uncommon in politics, among the political actors it should be on competing ideas, strategies and visions on how best to deliver dividends of democracy, not for selfish and greedy reasons, and should not disrupt smooth running of government.

The executive and legislative arms of government in Rivers should appreciate the crucial need for them to always be at peace and work together for the development of the state. Removing the governor when it does not appear yet that there are justifiable reasons for such could cause chaos and slow down the progress of the state.

It is in the interest of everybody in Rivers that the government runs smoothly so that the collective aspiration of a better state can be achieved. The police should appreciate the constitutional fact that their allegiance is to national interest not the interest of any individual or group. They should enforce the laws and maintain peace. Security operatives must always exhibit neutrality in their handling of every crisis.

When they are perceived to be biased, it can aggravate the crisis and lead to avoidable tragedy. The saying that when the walls of a building go down, the roof is not left standing applies here. Where the police, who are constitutionally saddled with the responsibility of maintaining law and order, allow themselves to be used to stoke or aggravate crises, not just the civilians but the police officers themselves, their family members and their property are in great danger. Neutrality of security operatives should always be visible in the interest of peace and safety.

People of Rivers should be honest and discerning in their reaction to the situation, support peaceful governance and shun any action capable of causing distractions, because at the end, they will be the losers. The House of Assembly should save democracy by not always allowing itself to be used to perpetrate undemocratic actions and causing impasse. Impeachment should not always be the way to go in every disagreement between the executive and the legislative arms of government that are supposed to work hand in hand to deliver democracy dividends to those who elected them into office. If the interest of the public is paramount in their hearts, little disagreement should not be allowed to disrupt the running of government.

The face-off between incumbent and former governors in some states across the country over power, how much was left in the account, how the finances of the state should be handled, who should get what, among others is worrisome. Leaders should exhibit maturity by surrendering power when they are no longer in office; else they constitute a serious threat to democracy and development.