In a strongly worded and widely circulated statement attributed to former Rivers State Governor Peter Odili, sharp criticisms were directed at Nyesom Wike, touching on political history, governance, and the ongoing power struggle in Rivers State.
The statement opens by recalling that President Bola Tinubu was part of the 1999 class of governors alongside Odili, noting that Tinubu did not contest the presidency in 2007, unlike Odili. From this standpoint, the writer questions why Wike, now serving under Tinubu, would feel emboldened to speak disrespectfully toward a former governor and elder statesman.
The response challenges Wike’s reaction to comments Odili allegedly made in support of Governor Siminalayi Fubara.
According to the text, Odili had stated that Fubara prevented the state treasury from being turned into a personal asset and that the governor’s actions represented a broader struggle to free the state from entrenched control. The writer insists these claims are factual and asks which of them could genuinely be disputed.
Several accusations are raised, including claims that political unrest in the state escalated after Fubara blocked continued access to state funds by Wike and his allies. The statement further alleges that Rivers State’s internally generated revenue increased by over ₦100 billion following this shift, and that major infrastructure projects have since been executed without loans because public finances were better protected.
The contrast between leadership styles is emphasized, with praise for Fubara’s focus on public infrastructure rather than personal commercial ventures. The writer questions why acknowledging these points should attract hostility or disrespect.
Attention then turns to Wike’s political rise, crediting key figures for bringing him into prominence and expressing regret over supporting his early political advancement, including his emergence as a local government chairman. The text argues that Wike’s political relevance was largely a result of decisions made by Odili and subsequent appointments by Rotimi Amaechi.
Claims by Wike about personal favors are also dismissed. The statement argues that projects allegedly done “for Odili,” including the construction of a residence, were funded through official channels rather than personal generosity. It further notes that Odili himself had served as both deputy governor and governor and was not dependent on such gestures.
The response rejects assertions that Odili’s administration achieved little, listing power projects in Trans-Amadi and Omoku, the construction of a new Government House, as well as legislative and judicial complexes. It also criticizes the sale of some state assets under later administrations.
A sharp comparison is drawn between Odili’s time in office and Wike’s tenure, alleging that Wike prioritized personal enrichment during his first term and later relied on visible infrastructure projects to distract from earlier excesses.
The statement defends Odili’s role as an elder statesman, arguing that elders are duty-bound to stand with the people and oppose wrongdoing, not align with actions perceived as harmful to the public interest. It emphasizes that Odili had previously supported Wike when he was governor and is now acting from the same principle.
The message concludes with a warning tone, urging Wike to allow peace in a state that has contributed significantly to his political career. It notes that Rivers people have endured his influence across multiple roles, from local government administration to federal office, and suggests that public patience is not unlimited.
The final paragraph reveals a twist, clarifying that the entire exchange was presented as a dream sequence, with the author waking from sleep before hearing the imagined conclusion of Odili’s reply leaving readers to reflect on the emotions and tensions shaping Rivers State politics.
