The political landscape of Rivers State is embroiled in a complex power struggle, with the suspended Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, at the center of the storm. Former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, a powerful figure in the region and Fubara’s one-time political mentor, has publicly expressed his disapproval of Fubara’s governance, leading to a rift between the two. High Chief Government Ekpemupolo, also known as Tompolo, a prominent ex-militant leader in the Niger Delta, has intervened, urging Wike to forgive Fubara and facilitate a reconciliation for the sake of unity and stability in the region. This appeal has ignited a debate about the nature of the conflict and the preconditions for forgiveness.
Wike, speaking through his media aide, Lere Olayinka, contends that there is no personal offense requiring forgiveness. He argues that forgiveness necessitates an acknowledgement of wrongdoing by the offending party and a subsequent plea for pardon. Wike insists that Fubara has neither admitted to any transgression nor sought his forgiveness. He frames his critique of Fubara’s governance as a matter of principle, not personal animosity. Wike maintains that his concern stems from Fubara’s alleged disregard for those who supported his rise to power and his perceived failure to adhere to the rule of law. This, he asserts, does not constitute a personal offense requiring forgiveness but rather a call for responsible governance.
Olayinka elaborates on Wike’s position, emphasizing the fundamental process of reconciliation. He reiterates that true forgiveness requires the offending party to recognize and admit their fault before seeking pardon. He maintains that Fubara has not taken this crucial step, thus precluding any discussion of forgiveness. Olayinka underscores that Wike’s criticism of Fubara focuses on governance issues and is not driven by personal grievances. He suggests that if any offense has been committed, it is against those who supported Fubara’s gubernatorial bid, not against Wike personally.
Olayinka further challenges the narrative that Wike is the aggrieved party, suggesting instead that Fubara should introspect on his changed attitude towards his former mentor. He highlights the history of close collaboration between Wike and Fubara, pointing out that Wike consistently supported and defended Fubara during their political alliance. He questions the sudden shift in Fubara’s demeanor towards Wike, asking at what point Wike transformed from a trusted ally to a perceived adversary. This rhetorical question underscores Olayinka’s contention that the onus of reconciliation rests on Fubara, who should examine his own actions and motivations.
The crux of the matter, as presented by Olayinka, lies in Fubara’s alleged disregard for those who contributed to his political success. Wike’s admonishment, according to Olayinka, is a plea for Fubara to acknowledge and appreciate the sacrifices made by his supporters, rather than discarding them after achieving power. This principled stance, Olayinka argues, is distinct from a personal grievance and does not require an apology from Fubara to Wike. Instead, it calls for a change in Fubara’s governing philosophy and a recognition of his political debts.
Olayinka concludes with a poignant analogy, comparing the situation to a doctor offering medicine to a sick patient. He posits that while Tompolo is urging the doctor (Wike) to provide the medicine (forgiveness), the patient (Fubara) is unwilling to take it. This emphasizes Olayinka’s central argument: reconciliation is a two-way street, and while Wike is open to dialogue and resolution, Fubara must first acknowledge the need for change and demonstrate a willingness to reconcile. This, he implies, is the missing ingredient in the current stalemate. The future of Rivers State politics, therefore, hinges on Fubara’s response to these calls for introspection and reconciliation.
