The ongoing conflict between the Edo State Government and the reinstated Deputy Governor, Philip Shaibu, has sparked considerable controversy, particularly regarding remarks he made concerning the potential looting of government properties as the administration nears its end. In a statement released on Friday, Shaibu issued a strong warning aimed at Permanent Secretaries and the heads of various Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs) to remain vigilant against the looting of government assets by political appointees. He emphasized the responsibilities of these officials to safeguard government properties, indicating that they would be held accountable by the incoming administration should losses occur under their supervision.
Shaibu’s warning comes at a critical juncture, just weeks before the administration concludes its term. He explicitly stated that the Permanent Secretaries and directors must protect government assets because the political aides who are currently in power will be leaving office soon. His message underscores the severity of the situation, highlighting that any failure to account for government properties could result in consequences. Shaibu also noted that the removal of fixed items and government property is a crime, urging top officials to adopt a proactive stance in preventing any acts of theft or misconduct during the transition period.
The response from the Edo State Government was swift and dismissive, with Crusoe Osagie, the Special Adviser for Media Projects, branding Shaibu’s warning as “infantile.” Osagie urged governmental staff and the public to disregard the statements made by the dismissed deputy governor, asserting that Shaibu’s opinion holds no weight following his impeachment. He reminded the workforce that Shaibu continues to be seen as impeached until a court determines otherwise, suggesting that he no longer possesses the authority to direct or influence state officials, including Permanent Secretaries and heads of MDAs.
Osagie’s remarks not only challenge the legitimacy of Shaibu’s warning but also encourage government staff to carry out their duties without fear of potential repercussions stemming from Shaibu’s statements. The implication here is that Osagie regards Shaibu’s warning as an attempt to sow discord or create ambiguity regarding accountability among state functions as the transition occurs. He reassured the workforce that they should remain focused on their responsibilities and uphold the quality of services rendered to the residents of Edo State.
The crux of the matter lies in the tension that has developed between the current administration and the impeached Deputy Governor. Each party appears to be positioning itself for the upcoming political transition, with Shaibu attempting to assert his authority and protect government assets, while the current government seeks to minimize any influence he still holds. This conflict points to broader issues of governance and accountability in the region, particularly concerning the protection and management of public property at a time when political turnover can often lead to vulnerabilities.
As the situation unfolds, it becomes increasingly critical for both sides to navigate this conflict delicately to prevent any potential fallout that may arise from the public’s loss of confidence in government operations. The statements coming from both Shaibu and Osagie reflect deeper underlying issues of leadership and responsibilities within the Edo State Government. The resolution of this dispute will require careful consideration of legal and ethical standards and could set a precedent for how similar issues are handled in future transitions of power. In maintaining the integrity of public administration, it will be imperative for all parties involved to prioritize transparency and accountability during this tumultuous period.
