L+R: Former Governor of Rivers State and Founder, PAMO University, Sir Dr Peter Odili; Former Governor of Rivers State and FCT Minister Nyesom Wike; Rivers State Governor, Sir Sim Fubara.
There comes a time when the people must ask their elected representatives a simple question: is this really what we sent you to the House to do?
And there comes another time when citizens must look beyond the immediate headlines and ask whether there is more to a particular political action than what is being presented to the public.
That is where the latest controversy surrounding PAMO University of Medical Sciences becomes particularly interesting.
The Rivers State House of Assembly says it is investigating funds disbursed by the Rivers State Government to PAMO University from 2017 to date. The Assembly says its Ad-hoc Committee wants to establish how much was released, how the funds were utilised and the identities of scholarship beneficiaries.
Nobody should oppose accountability.
Let me make that clear from the outset.
I am not against the Rivers State House of Assembly investigating the current administration over alleged misappropriation, misuse or improper disbursement of state resources. In fact, any public official entrusted with Rivers State resources should be prepared to account for every naira.
But accountability must be conducted within the boundaries of the law.
And this is where the Assembly’s handling of PAMO University raises serious questions.
Because PAMO is not a ministry of the Rivers State Government.
PAMO is not a parastatal of the Rivers State Government.
PAMO is not a state-owned university.
PAMO is a privately owned university founded by former Rivers State Governor, Sir Dr Peter Otunuya Odili. The university itself identifies Odili as its founder.
So why has the Rivers State House of Assembly suddenly positioned itself as though the Vice-Chancellor of a private university is a state official who must personally appear before lawmakers under threat of constitutional sanctions?
That is the question.
And it is a question that deserves an answer.
Is This Really About PAMO or About Odili?
Let us not pretend that politics does not exist in Rivers State.
It does.
Rivers State has spent years trapped in a bitter political struggle involving former Governor and current FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, and Governor Siminalayi Fubara.
During that crisis, former Governor Peter Odili publicly backed Fubara and declared him the political leader of Rivers State. Wike subsequently criticised Odili for taking sides with Fubara, openly accusing him of bias during the political confrontation.
That history is not speculation.
It is documented political history.
There is therefore nothing unreasonable about citizens asking whether the current treatment of PAMO should be viewed entirely as an ordinary financial investigation or whether the political history surrounding its founder deserves consideration.
That question becomes even more legitimate because of the political history of the Rivers State House of Assembly itself.
During the Rivers political crisis, 27 lawmakers defected from the PDP to the APC amid their confrontation with Fubara, with contemporary reporting describing the lawmakers as loyal to Wike. More recently, reporting on the 2026 APC screening exercise described all 29 serving Assembly members cleared by the party’s screening committee as loyal to Wike, although the Rivers APC subsequently denied allegations that Wike had influenced its screening process.
Against that background, the question is unavoidable:
Is PAMO simply the subject of a financial investigation, or has the political disagreement surrounding its founder also become part of the story?
I am not saying that the Assembly has publicly admitted that its investigation is motivated by hostility towards Peter Odili.
It has not.
I am saying that the circumstances are sufficient to make reasonable citizens ask the question.
And if the Assembly believes that question is unfair, the easiest way to answer it is through transparency.
Show Rivers people the money.
Show them the documents.
Show them the irregularities.
Show them the evidence.
Then nobody will need to speculate about motive.
Nobody Is Against Accountability
Let nobody twist this argument.
I am not asking the Rivers State House of Assembly to stop investigating government expenditure.
I am asking it to investigate government expenditure properly.
If the Rivers State Government has been spending billions of naira on scholarships at PAMO, then the Assembly has every right to ask the government questions about those expenditures.
The Ministry of Education can be investigated.
The Ministry of Finance can be investigated.
The Office of the Accountant-General of the State can be investigated.
The officials who authorised the payments can be summoned.
The scholarship programme can be examined.
The beneficiaries can be verified.
The payment records can be obtained.
The budget provisions can be examined.
The Assembly can ask PAMO University to provide relevant information and documentation necessary to establish what happened to the money.
There are numerous legitimate avenues available.
So why jump directly to the Vice-Chancellor of a private university?
That is what I cannot understand.
If the Assembly’s concern is with Rivers State Government money, then start with Rivers State Government.
If the concern is with the Ministry of Education, investigate the Ministry of Education.
If the concern is with the Ministry of Finance, investigate the Ministry of Finance.
If the concern is with the Accountant-General’s office, investigate the Accountant-General’s office.
If the concern is with scholarship beneficiaries, verify the beneficiaries.
If the concern is with payments made to PAMO, request PAMO’s records.
But turning around to summon the Vice-Chancellor of a private university and then threatening constitutional action because he sent the institution’s lawyer to represent it is where this whole matter begins to look unnecessarily confrontational.
What Constitution Gave Them That Power?
This is perhaps the biggest question.
The Assembly says it is relying on its constitutional powers.
Fine.
Which constitutional provision gives the Rivers State House of Assembly unlimited authority over the Vice-Chancellor of a private university?
That question should not offend anybody.
It is a legitimate constitutional question.
Section 128 of the 1999 Constitution gives a State House of Assembly powers to direct or cause an investigation into matters within its legislative competence and matters concerning the administration or execution of laws within its legislative competence, among other specified matters. Section 129 contains provisions concerning the powers of the House in relation to persons and documents during such investigations.
But citing a constitutional provision is not the same thing as demonstrating that every person connected to a transaction involving government money automatically becomes subject to every demand of the House.
That distinction matters.
The Assembly needs to explain its legal basis.
If the House believes the Vice-Chancellor of a private university is legally required to appear personally, let it tell Rivers people exactly why.
If it believes sending a lawyer is insufficient, let it explain the legal provision that makes the personal appearance mandatory.
If the Constitution gives it that authority in these circumstances, let the relevant provision be identified.
This is not an attack on the Assembly.
This is democracy.
When public officials exercise public power, citizens have the right to ask where that power comes from.
A Lawyer Was Sent. So What?
The university did not, according to the account presented by its lawyer, simply ignore the Assembly.
Its legal representative appeared to speak for the institution.
Chukwuma Chinwo argued that PAMO is privately owned and that the financial relationship under examination concerns scholarship payments made by the Rivers State Government for Rivers indigenes studying at the university.
That argument may ultimately be accepted or rejected by the appropriate legal authorities.
But sending a lawyer to represent a private institution should not automatically be treated as an act of rebellion.
This is a university.
It has lawyers.
It has a governing structure.
It has management.
It has a Vice-Chancellor.
It has legal rights.
If there is a disagreement over whether the Vice-Chancellor must appear personally, there are legal mechanisms for resolving that disagreement.
The solution should not automatically be to threaten the private university with the full force of legislative power.
That is where the Assembly’s posture becomes excessive.
If There Is Misappropriation, Follow the Money
Again, let me repeat myself because I do not want anybody to deliberately misunderstand this article.
If public money has been misappropriated, investigate it.
If billions of naira belonging to Rivers people were stolen, expose it.
If scholarship funds were diverted, expose it.
If fake students were paid for, expose it.
If government officials inflated payments, expose them.
If PAMO received money it was not entitled to receive, expose it.
If anybody committed fraud, prosecute that person.
I will support accountability.
But the Assembly should follow the money rather than follow a personality.
That is the difference.
The proper investigation should begin with the public records.
How much was budgeted?
How much was approved?
Who approved it?
Who processed it?
Who signed the payment?
Who received it?
For what purpose?
Who benefited?
What evidence exists that the beneficiaries were genuine?
How much did PAMO actually receive?
What did PAMO provide in return?
Once these questions are answered, the truth will emerge.
There is no need to manufacture a political confrontation.
But Why PAMO Now?
The timing also deserves scrutiny.
The Assembly’s investigation comes after the House removed a proposed ₦6 billion allocation connected with PAMO scholarships from the 2026 budget before establishing the committee to investigate funding to the university dating back to 2017.
Again, there may be perfectly legitimate reasons for this.
Let the Assembly explain them.
But when the institution involved is founded by a former governor who publicly supported Governor Fubara during the political confrontation with Wike, and the current Assembly has a documented history of alignment with Wike during that crisis, it is not unreasonable for people to ask whether the investigation is entirely divorced from the political environment.
That is not an accusation of fact.
It is a question of public perception.
And public institutions must understand that perception matters.
Especially when the institution being investigated belongs to one of the most prominent political figures in Rivers State.
Odili’s PAMO Is Not Rivers State Government
This distinction should not be lost.
Peter Odili’s political history is one thing.
PAMO University’s ownership is another.
Rivers State Government scholarship payments are another.
The three must not be deliberately or accidentally merged.
Peter Odili may have founded PAMO.
That does not make PAMO a government institution.
The Rivers State Government may have paid scholarships to Rivers students studying at PAMO.
That does not automatically make PAMO a government department.
And the Assembly may have oversight powers over public expenditure.
That does not automatically mean the Vice-Chancellor of a private university becomes a public officer answerable to the House in every circumstance.
These distinctions are important.
They are the difference between legitimate oversight and an apparent political vendetta.
Face the Real Crisis Facing Rivers State
And while all of this is happening, Rivers State is dealing with serious problems.
Where is the same legislative energy when Rivers communities are crying over bad roads?
Where is the same urgency when public schools are deteriorating?
Where is the same determination when graduates are roaming the streets without jobs?
Where is the same investigative passion over youth unemployment?
Where is the sustained scrutiny of healthcare facilities?
Where is the Assembly’s aggressive investigation into abandoned projects?
Where is the accountability for resources allocated to the 23 local government areas?
Where are the committees investigating the condition of markets, drainage systems and basic infrastructure across Rivers communities?
Where is the same political courage when ordinary citizens demand answers about the quality of governance they receive in exchange for the enormous resources available to the state?
These are the questions that should dominate the Assembly’s agenda.
Not whether a private university’s Vice-Chancellor can be dragged before lawmakers at all costs.
Do Not Turn Legislative Oversight Into Political Revenge
The Rivers State House of Assembly must be careful.
Legislative power is not personal property.
It does not belong to the Speaker.
It does not belong to the Deputy Speaker.
It does not belong to individual lawmakers.
It belongs to the institution and is exercised on behalf of the people.
That power must therefore be used responsibly.
Nobody should be above accountability, including Peter Odili.
Nobody should be above scrutiny, including PAMO University.
Nobody should be above investigation, including the current Rivers State Government.
But nobody should be subjected to an investigation simply because of political association, disagreement or perceived political alignment.
If the Assembly’s case against PAMO is strong, let the evidence speak louder than the threats.
If its case concerns the state government’s expenditure, let the government officials responsible for those expenditures answer.
If PAMO is required to provide documents, request them.
If there is a legal disagreement over the appearance of the Vice-Chancellor, let the courts determine it.
That is how a democracy works.
The Assembly Must Remove the Political Suspicion
The easiest way for the Rivers State House of Assembly to remove the growing suspicion surrounding this investigation is simple.
Be transparent.
Publish the terms of reference.
Publish the financial figures being investigated.
Explain the legal basis for the summons.
Explain why the Vice-Chancellor’s personal appearance is considered indispensable.
Identify the specific irregularities being investigated.
Distinguish scholarship payments from direct institutional funding.
Show Rivers people the documents.
Then let the people judge.
But when the Assembly says it is investigating funds paid to a private university and then threatens constitutional action against its Vice-Chancellor after the institution sends a lawyer, citizens are entitled to ask whether this is still a financial investigation or whether something else has entered the equation.
And given the history of the Rivers political crisis, that question cannot simply be dismissed.
Drop the Witch-Hunt
The Rivers State House of Assembly should drop this needless witch-hunt against Odili’s PAMO Varsity and face the real crisis facing our state.
Again, I am not saying public money should not be investigated.
Investigate it.
I am saying investigate it properly.
Investigate the Ministry of Education.
Investigate the Ministry of Finance.
Investigate the Office of the Accountant-General.
Investigate the scholarship programme.
Investigate the payment records.
Investigate the beneficiaries.
Request information from PAMO.
Examine every relevant document.
If anyone stole Rivers money, expose them.
If anyone misappropriated public funds, prosecute them.
But do not transform a private university into a government agency because the Rivers State Government paid scholarship fees for its citizens studying there.
And do not allow a legitimate question of public accountability to become a convenient vehicle for settling political scores.
Peter Odili supported Governor Fubara during the Rivers political crisis.
That is a matter of public record. Wike openly criticised Odili over that position. The Rivers Assembly has also had a well-documented political alignment with the Wike camp during the crisis.
Those facts do not, by themselves, prove that the PAMO investigation is politically motivated.
But they are enough to make the question legitimate.
Is this really about PAMO’s financial records, or is PAMO being made to pay the price for the political position of its founder?
The Assembly can answer that question.
And the best answer will not come from threats.
It will come from evidence.
Rivers State has too many genuine problems to allow its legislative institution to become consumed by a confrontation with a private university.
Our roads are crying.
Our schools are crying.
Our hospitals are crying.
Our youths are crying.
Our communities are crying.
The people are crying for jobs, infrastructure, accountability and responsible governance.
That is where the searchlight should be.
Not on a private university because its
founder happens to be Peter Odili.
The Rivers State House of Assembly must remember that its power was entrusted to it by the people.
Use that power to protect the people.
Use it to investigate public money.
Use it to expose corruption.
Use it to demand accountability from government.
But do not use it to settle political scores.
Drop the needless witch-hunt against Odili’s PAMO Varsity.
Face the real crisis facing Rivers State.
About The Author
