Rivers elders write Tinubu, Fubara, say presidential intervention death sentence

The Rivers Elders and Leaders Forum have expressed their dissatisfaction with the presidential resolution on the political crisis in Rivers State, stating that it is lopsided and goes against the rule of law. They believe that President Bola Tinubu does not have the authority to overrule the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. Additionally, they criticized the Christmas Day broadcast by the state governor, Siminalayi Fubara, calling it a death sentence.

Former Rivers State Governor, Chief Rufus Ada-George, led the forum in delivering this message through two separate strong-worded open letters addressed to the President and Fubara. These letters were dated December 24, 2023, and were made public in Port Harcourt on Wednesday. The signatories of the letters included prominent figures such as Dr Gabriel Toby, Ibim Princewill, Rear Adm. P. Fingesi (retd.), Emeritus Prof Dagogo Fubara, and Senator Bennett Birabi, among others.

The elders commended the President for intervening in the political rift between Nyesom Wike, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, and Fubara. However, they expressed concerns about whether the intervention has helped to resolve the crisis or exacerbated it. They emphasized that the directive resolution document appears biased in favor of Nyesom Wike, to the detriment of Governor Sir Siminialayi Fubara and the interests of the people of Rivers State.

Furthermore, the elders criticized the composition and attendance of the presidential truce, highlighting the absence of representation from the faction recognized by a court of competent jurisdiction, as well as traditional rulers, women, and youth leadership. They questioned whether the President has the authority to overrule the ruling of a court of competent jurisdiction and emphasized the importance of the separation of powers.

The forum applauded Fubara for his humility displayed in his Christmas Day speech, but they disagreed with his view that the proclamation was not as severe as portrayed and promised to implement it. The elders firmly opposed this, stating that the governor does not have the constitutional power to implement the agreement. They alleged that the agreement was designed to favor the FCT minister at the expense of the incumbent governor and the people of the state.

The elders also criticized the lack of sensitivity to the people’s security, political, and social interests in the environment where the peace agreement was brokered. They cautioned the governor against implementing the ‘Presidential Peace Proclamation,’ emphasizing that he has no constitutional or legal power to do so.