How has your
experience been as Speaker of the House?

I want to say that being Speaker for this period has been quite interesting and
challenging. You know that, in a state that is this complex, with a lot of
ethnic colorations, when you are Speaker, you assume a selfless position,
whereby you are now a member and representative of all the constituencies in
the state put together.

That does not undermine the fact that you have your own primary
constituency to look after. So, it has been very interesting and with some
intrigues, and challenging. There have been lots of gains as well. Being able
to manage the House has brought out a lot of strength within us as a House and
we are beginning to see the strength in our diversity as a people.

How were you able
to achieve this?

First and foremost, it has been by the grace of God, in that He gave strength
and good health for me to be able to function effectively as Speaker, and to
have good working relationship with my colleagues. But, I must also tell you
that one thing that has endeared me to them has been that I have come with
transparent hands. When your actions are not shrouded in secrecy and you are
not trying to be unnecessarily self-centred or bullish each time you come out with
a strong position, that it is always in the overall interest of the
institution, which is the institution, and by extension, their interest.

So, when they realised that you are not on a self-serving
mission, then, of course, confidence is reposed in your administration, and
that strengthens the relationship between yourself and other members. This also
translates to staff. We have had issues with workers where we disagreed with
staff, as management of Delta House of Assembly, but it is always a give-and-take
situation.

You spoke of
intrigues and challenges; can you speak on them?

There are times that certain discussions are taken and people say that your
action or decision is influenced by the fact you are an Anioma man and you are
doing that to undermine other ethnic groups. Sometimes, they feel you should
have been more lenient the way you handled a situation. On the other hand, it’s
your duty to explain to them, especially when, sometimes, such things come in
festering situation.

You need to come with reasonable and cogent reasons for them to
consider and see the fact that you are coming from a position of due process,
and, as such, you do not have any ulterior motive for your action, and that
process is not a one-off thing – that you have to say it, act it and live it.
And all of that process does not come easy. All these are part of intrigues.
For example, you must have heard once or twice that they wanted to impeach the
Speaker or they wanted to do this or do that. These are also intrigues. I can
also tell you that this is the first time in the 21-year history of the state
where you have a full opposition in the house.

We have been able to manage the opposition. I am not sure you
have heard of any bickering or that the opposition is complaining that they are
being marginalised. That is not to say we don’t have our internal disagreements
or crises; but have been able to rise above our party differences in the larger
interest of Delta State and its citizens. For instance, there is no way we can
believe that someone who is coming from the opposition party will, with ease,
agree entirely with the policies and programmes of the ruling PDP.

But, as a family, we have been able to come together to say that
the policies of the PDP, so long as they are geared towards the wellbeing of
the average Deltan, we must allow it fly. We have been able to work together as
a team, and team work rises above sectional or ethnic considerations. So, those
are part of the intrigues and challenges that we have surmounted over the period.
That is why I say it has been interesting because we have been able to harness
our God-giving potential to serve Deltans.

It is being said
from the outside that the opposition party members are totally at home with the
leadership of the House; what is responsible for this?

That is true (and I have little doubt it is) because of the relationship that
the House leadership and the entire membership have been able to build, based
on grounds of fairness and equity. We believe that everybody should be treated
well and fairly and that is the message we have carried through since I became
Speaker. More importantly, as a House, we represent various constituencies
which are all equal.

We have ensured that, since all constituencies are equal,
everybody is properly carried along, rather than making them feel
short-changed. One thing is sure; it goes to underscore the kind of things we
put on the table to have earned their confidence: integrity, transparency and,
of course, ensuring that everybody is carried along.

What is the
relationship between the House and the executive arm of government?

People are always interested in what happens between us, the legislature, and
the executive because they believe that we are at each other’s throat all the
time. For me, we have had the most cordial relationship with the executive.
What is responsible for this is mutual respect? We have areas of disagreements
and we disagreed regularly, in principle. But the ability to sit down and
resolve our differences, a capacity we have evolved and consolidated, is part
of the beauty of our relationship, our democracy and our mutual respect for
each other, as different arms of government.

Members of the public do not know that we occasionally have
disagreements; they feel we are a rubber stamp to the executive. But this
(erroneous impression of the subservience of the legislature to the executive)
is okay, so long as our cordial relationship is moving the wheel of democracy
progressively forward in the state, and in the best interest of Deltans, we
have no issue with that one.

What has been the
most remarkable challenge?

The most remarkable challenge I have had to face is being able to manage a
House where you have a proper opposition in such high numbers go along with
members of the ruling party and not have friction and where the bills and
policies are not debated in such harsh tones that people begin to wonder if we
can ever make a headway.

It’s been a challenge. Because we don’t say it does not mean
such a challenge does not exist; it does, but we have been able to fashion out
a situation where we sit down as members of the house, at executive sessions,
and, after intense debates, we resolve our contentious issues, and by the time
we come, we come in one accord.

But that does not mean that members of the opposition parties,
which are as vibrant as other members of the House, do not come out spitting
fire as they want to do; that we are able to decisively deal with this makes
that a success story of the House. That has been one of our biggest challenges
because what it means is getting those in opposition to trust your sense of
judgement to the point that you are not leading them astray.

What’s your
single most spectacular achievement?

Let me say that the single most spectacular achievement has been the unity that
we have found in one another. I do not want to sound immodest that we have
achieved that, but that is the collective glory of the House, not mine, because
even though I, as Speaker, symbolise the legislature as an institution, the
House comprises 29 members, all of who equally  share  in the glory
of that achievement.

For me, if there is anything at all that I can count as my
achievement, it is the fact that 29 members of the House can raise their hands
and, as a House and a body, see that we are not divided on issues on all
fronts, in spite of our minor individual differences. So, for me, the unity of
the House is what I particularly give glory to God for.

Recently, Delta
Assembly made a law that enabled the executive to put in place caretaker
committees for local councils in the state. Concerns are being expressed as to
their legality, given that councils ought to be democratically elected; what is
your view on this?

Section 7 of the Constitution empowers State House of Assembly to make laws for
the administration, functions and structure of local governments. So, if in its
wisdom the State House of Assembly finds that there is a lacuna arising from
the lapse of the term of office of the elected leaders and, since we cannot
allow a vacuum, decides to put in place a law that enables the executive to
avoid this vacuum, would that be wrong?

The caretaker committee members are appointees; if you can have
appointees of the state governor run ministries and the like, I do not see
anything extraordinary or out of place if you empower them by law to get
appointees to run councils. However, in running the councils, they should not
run them against the provisions of the law.

What was the
motivation of the House in moving for the dissolution of DEPOPADEC Board?

We did not have any motivation, in the sense of your question. The Board was
dissolved because we found that there were certain things that were going on
that made it not to function optimally for the benefit of Deltans, particularly
the oil-producing areas.

So, we decided to take advantage of the law establishing the
Delta State Oil Producing Area Development Commission (DESOPADEC) to dissolve
the board and call on the governor to pronounce it; that has been done and we
acted within the provision of the law. The most important thing is for you to
look at the board before it was dissolved and now and see whether there is no
significant improvement in what they are doing.

What do Deltans
look up to in 2013?

First, we give God the glory that 2013 is here. From the State House of
Assembly, we want to continually make laws that make for good governance. That
is our sworn commitment, and to ensure that, as a House, we stabilise the
polity by making sure that the checks and balances that we provide the
executive arm of government are also very much in place. We have already started
planning a situation whereby the law-making process is all-encompassing by way
of public hearings, and by encouraging people to submit memoranda so that it
can, more and more, be a people’s government, a people’s House, and the laws,
the people’s laws.

We want to avoid a situation where a lot of people may be
tempted to say they do not understand the laws we are making for them. We want
the people to be part of the lawmaking process and one of the ways of ensuring
that is by ensuring that lawmaking in the House is not restricted to only the
29 members of the House, but becomes the responsibilities of the entire
citizens of the state.

Nobody should imagine that we are magicians or that we have
monopoly of knowledge in all areas of human endeavours, as legislators. In
spite of the obvious devotion of our members to the effective discharge of
their duties to the public, there are still areas of human activities which
affect our lawmaking process and, in which, with all sense of modesty, we are
not experts. In such areas, we need such experts to share with us their
knowledge to guide us in our lawmaking responsibility.

People can even write in or participate in our public hearings
to draw our attention to our perceived faults so that we can better serve our
people, provided, of course, that these experts are themselves motivated, like
us, by the solemn desire to selflessly serve our people. I can assure you of
this – that Deltans should be rest assured that, as a responsible House, we
will come together, and whatever is sent in as law is done with the best
professional advice on offer, and in the best interest of all.

So, what are the
strategies for achieving that?

In reaching out. Every lawmaker has a constituency office opened in his/her
constituency, and we will also try to ensure that, as a law, in every quarter,
we must visit our constituencies so that when laws are to be made, we should be
able to inform our constituents on time to enable them make their contributions
to the process of lawmaking.

Aside that, the committee of the House which has responsibility
for the law-in-making will put out public notice to constituents so that they
can be part of the process. At the same time, programmes like town hall
meetings can be held by legislators.

Source: Leadership