Background of the dispute
When the Rivers State House of Assembly announced plans to scrutinise the six‑month spending record of former Sole Administrator IBAS, the reaction was swift. IBAS, who served as a government administrator before his current role, called the move “unconstitutional” and said the state legislature lacked the legal footing to examine the finances of a former official.
Supporters of the former administrator rallied behind him, noting that the state assembly’s powers are limited to current office‑holders. They argued that once an individual leaves a position, the jurisdiction to audit past actions shifts to a higher authority – in this case, the National Assembly.
In response, the state assembly defended its intent, saying the probe was meant to safeguard public funds and restore confidence after rumors of misallocation. They pointed to a series of budgetary allocations during the six‑month window that, they claimed, were never publicly accounted for.
Legal and political implications
Legal experts have weighed in, drawing a line between constitutional provisions and political practice. Most agree that the Nigerian Constitution reserves fiscal oversight of former state officials for the National Assembly, especially when the matter involves federal allocations or cross‑state financial flows.
- Constitutional argument: The state assembly’s charter does not list former officials among its oversight targets.
- Federal authority view: The National Assembly holds exclusive power to initiate investigations that cross state boundaries or involve former state executives.
- Political stakes: The standoff underscores a broader power struggle between Rivers State lawmakers and federal legislators, with each side keen to demonstrate its relevance.
Political commentators see the clash as a symptom of deeper governance issues in the Niger Delta. They note that frequent disputes over jurisdiction often stall critical audits, leaving citizens uncertain about how public money is managed. Some suggest that a clearer legal framework is needed to delineate when and how state bodies can examine former officials’ financial conduct.
The controversy also fuels the conversation about accountability mechanisms. If the state assembly cannot conduct the probe, citizens may feel forced to rely on the National Assembly, which historically takes longer to act on state‑level concerns. This delay can erode public trust, especially in regions already battling perceptions of corruption and mismanagement.
As the debate continues, the immediate question remains: will the National Assembly step in, or will the matter fizzle out, leaving the six‑month spending record untouched? The answer will likely set a precedent for how similar disputes are handled across Nigeria’s federated system.
