Governor Fubara’s Missteps: A Tale of Bad Advice and Unethical Maneuvering

In the unfolding political drama in Rivers State, Governor Siminalayi Fubara finds himself at the center of a storm that threatens to undermine his administration’s credibility. What began as a constitutional obligation to present the 2025 budget to the Rivers State House of Assembly has spiraled into a spectacle of locked gates, public accusations, and questionable tactics—all pointing to a governor poorly advised and veering dangerously close to unethical governance.

The latest chapter in this saga played out on Wednesday when Governor Fubara arrived at the Assembly quarters, only to be met with locked gates and security personnel refusing entry. The governor’s claim—that he had informed lawmakers of his intent to present the budget—clashed with the Assembly’s assertion of “no official communication.” This standoff, however, is less a logistical miscommunication and more a symptom of deeper strategic blunders, likely fueled by advisers steering Fubara down a perilous path.

Fubara’s troubles stem from his administration’s handling of a Supreme Court judgment mandating the presentation of the 2025 budget to the Assembly led by Speaker Rt. Hon. Martin Amaewhule. The court’s ruling was clear, yet the governor’s response has been anything but. His initial attempt on March 12 to submit the budget ended in failure, with Fubara alleging he was denied entry despite prior notice—a soft copy sent earlier and a hard copy purportedly delivered through the clerk. The Assembly disputes this, and the absence of a verifiable acknowledgment letter only muddies the waters.

Rather than rectifying this with a transparent, procedurally sound approach, Fubara doubled down. In a letter dated March 13, he formally notified the Speaker of his intent to present the budget on March 19 at 11:00 a.m., “or at any other time deemed convenient by the House.” On the surface, this appears conciliatory. But the governor’s public rhetoric—labeling unnamed “saboteurs” and framing himself as a victim of political machinations—suggests a calculated move to shift blame rather than resolve the impasse. This is where the fingerprints of bad advisers become evident.

Good governance demands adherence to constitutional processes, not theatrical displays of grievance. The Assembly’s procedure for receiving a governor’s communication is straightforward: a properly written letter is read by the Speaker, debated by the Majority Leader, seconded by the Minority Leader, and put to a voice vote. Fubara’s failure to navigate this process effectively raises questions about his administration’s competence—or worse, its willingness to bypass legal norms for political expediency.

Advisers pushing Fubara to adopt a confrontational stance, rather than a collaborative one, are doing him a disservice. Locking horns with the Assembly, especially after a Supreme Court directive, risks alienating lawmakers whose cooperation he needs to govern effectively. The governor’s appeal on Thursday in Okrika for “peace and development” rings hollow when juxtaposed with his earlier actions—arriving unannounced at the Assembly quarters and leveraging media sympathy instead of engaging in backroom diplomacy.

Fubara’s call for the Assembly to “consider the interest of Rivers people” is a noble sentiment, but it loses weight when his own moves appear driven by political survival rather than public good. His advisers seem to have convinced him that a public showdown with the Assembly will rally popular support, painting him as a governor thwarted by intransigent lawmakers. Yet, this strategy backfires when scrutinized. The absence of a posted acknowledgment letter, as suggested by a concerned citizen on X, leaves Fubara open to accusations of obfuscation. If he has evidence of proper notification, why not make it public and expose the “main saboteur” he alludes to? The silence speaks volumes.

Moreover, the governor’s insistence on compliance with a 48-hour ultimatum issued by the Assembly—before he even received the certified court judgment—smacks of selective outrage. A seasoned leader, properly counseled, would have used this as leverage to negotiate, not to escalate tensions. Instead, Fubara’s team appears to have opted for a high-stakes gamble that risks portraying him as petulant rather than principled.

Governor Fubara still has an opportunity to course-correct. Sending a meticulously documented letter via a reputable courier—UPS, DHL, GIG, or NIPOST—as suggested by observers, would demonstrate seriousness and transparency. Following through with a budget presentation that adheres strictly to constitutional guidelines could rebuild trust with the Assembly and the public. But this requires jettisoning the counsel of aides who favor grandstanding over governance.

The people of Rivers State deserve better than a governor locked out of his own Assembly, reduced to issuing pleas for peace after stoking conflict. Fubara’s commitment to “total peace” must be matched by actions that prioritize process over politics. Until then, the unethical maneuvers on display—born of bad advice—threaten to define his tenure as one of missed opportunities rather than meaningful progress.