“Seven Years Of Silence, Now The Truth Must Come Out!” — Tonye Isenah Set To Expose The Untold Story Of Bayelsa’s 2019 Speakership Crisis As Dickson-Diri Power Politics Returns To The Spotlight
By Passman Akpos
For nearly seven years, one of the most controversial political episodes in Bayelsa State’s recent history has remained surrounded by unanswered questions, conflicting accounts and allegations of behind-the-scenes political arrangements.
Now, the man at the centre of that controversy, former Speaker of the Bayelsa State House of Assembly, Rt. Hon. Tonye Emmanuel Isenah, appears ready to break his silence.
In a statement that could reopen an important chapter of Bayelsa’s political history, Isenah disclosed that he had remained silent for approximately seven years about what really transpired during his controversial removal as Speaker of the State House of Assembly in 2019.
He revealed that he had wanted to publish his memoirs detailing the speakership saga but was advised against releasing the account at this time.
However, he appears to have reconsidered his position.
According to him, he can no longer continue keeping quiet and intends to address the press after the Bayelsa State Thanksgiving celebration. He promised to inform the public of the date of the proposed press conference.
His announcement has immediately revived questions about the political circumstances surrounding his removal in September 2019.
But to understand why this announcement matters, Bayelsans must revisit the events that shook the legislative arm of government, exposed the influence of political power brokers and raised fundamental questions about the independence of the State House of Assembly.
THE GENESIS: HOW THE SPEAKERSHIP BECAME A POLITICAL BARGAINING POINT
On June 6, 2019, Tonye Emmanuel Isenah emerged Speaker of the 6th Bayelsa State House of Assembly.
He represented Kolokuma/Opokuma Constituency 1.
At the time, Senator Henry Seriake Dickson was governor of Bayelsa State, and the Peoples Democratic Party controlled the government and the majority of the Assembly.
However, Isenah’s emergence as Speaker would later become entangled in the political calculations surrounding the 2019 governorship election.
Reports published by several national newspapers indicated that his emergence was connected to political negotiations within the PDP’s Restoration Caucus, a political structure associated with the then Governor, Seriake Dickson.
Punch, THISDAY, The Guardian and other publications reported that an arrangement allegedly existed for Isenah to occupy the speakership for a limited period before relinquishing the position to another lawmaker.
The details of the alleged agreement differed across contemporary reports.
Some accounts suggested a three-month arrangement, while others described a longer timeline or conditions tied to the outcome of the governorship election.
But there was one major political development that reportedly changed the calculations.
Senator Douye Diri, who also came from Kolokuma/Opokuma Local Government Area, emerged as the PDP’s governorship candidate.
Suddenly, the political argument over the speakership acquired a new dimension.
THE DICKSON-DIRI FACTOR: WAS POLITICAL BALANCING MORE IMPORTANT THAN LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE?
The emergence of Douye Diri as the PDP governorship candidate reportedly intensified pressure on Isenah to relinquish the speakership.
Why?
Because both men came from Kolokuma/Opokuma Local Government Area.
According to reports published at the time, influential political stakeholders considered it politically undesirable for the governorship and the speakership to remain in the same local government area.
Southern Ijaw also featured prominently in the political calculations because of its electoral importance ahead of the November 16, 2019 governorship election.
Monday Bubou-Obolo, who represented Southern Ijaw Constituency 2, was reportedly positioned to replace Isenah.
The political argument was that moving the speakership to Southern Ijaw could help address grievances and improve the PDP’s electoral calculations in an area where the APC’s governorship candidate, David Lyon, enjoyed significant political support.
This raises an important question about Bayelsa’s political system:
Was the leadership of the State House of Assembly being determined primarily by the constitutional and political independence of lawmakers, or by negotiations among powerful political stakeholders seeking electoral advantages?
That is one of the issues Isenah’s forthcoming account should help clarify.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2019: THE DAY BAYELSA HAD TWO SPEAKERS
The disagreement eventually exploded on September 30, 2019.
What should ordinarily have been an internal legislative disagreement developed into a major political confrontation.
Isenah maintained that he had presided over plenary and adjourned the House sine die, insisting that no subsequent proceedings could validly remove him without the House being properly reconvened.
However, lawmakers who remained behind proceeded with his removal.
Seventeen PDP lawmakers reportedly participated in the proceedings, while Monday Bubou-Obolo emerged as the new Speaker.
There were also reports of sporadic gunshots around the Assembly complex in Yenagoa, while controversy surrounded the disappearance and subsequent use of the legislative mace.
For Bayelsans, the spectacle raised disturbing questions.
How could the legislative institution of a state become the centre of such a dramatic confrontation?
Who were the political actors involved in the negotiations?
Why did an alleged disagreement over political arrangements escalate into a confrontation involving lawmakers, security personnel and supporters?
And was the removal genuinely about legislative misconduct, or was it fundamentally about an earlier political understanding?
These questions remain relevant to understanding the political history of the state.
THE MOST INTERESTING PART: ISENAH DENIED THE ALLEGED AGREEMENT
Perhaps one of the most significant aspects of the controversy was Isenah’s public position at the time.
In an interview with THISDAY published on October 1, 2019, Isenah rejected the allegation that he had entered into an agreement to resign after three months.
He challenged those making the allegation to produce documentary evidence.
He also insisted that the Assembly was an independent arm of government and that he had not committed any offence warranting his removal.
However, other contemporary newspaper reports quoted unnamed political insiders who maintained that an understanding had been reached.
This created two competing accounts of the same political episode.
On one side was Isenah’s denial of the alleged agreement.
On the other were accounts attributed to political insiders who claimed that the arrangement existed.
Seven years later, Isenah now says he has something more to tell Bayelsans.
Could his forthcoming account provide evidence that was never made public?
Could he identify the individuals involved in the negotiations?
Could he explain what happened during the meetings preceding his removal?
These are questions that deserve answers rather than assumptions.
THE OCTOBER 2019 TWIST: WHY DID HE EVENTUALLY RESIGN?
Another important chapter deserves attention.
After the September 30 confrontation, the political crisis was reportedly resolved through reconciliation efforts involving Governor Seriake Dickson and other stakeholders.
On October 7, 2019, Isenah submitted a resignation letter dated September 30.
The Assembly subsequently reversed its earlier impeachment proceedings and accepted his resignation.
In explaining his decision, the resignation letter reportedly stated that stepping down had become necessary for peace to reign and for the greater good of the state.
But this development presents another important question.
If Isenah had maintained that his removal was illegal, what exactly changed between September 30 and October 7?
Was his resignation a voluntary political decision?
Was it the outcome of negotiations?
Were there assurances, concessions or political understandings reached during the reconciliation process?
Who participated in those discussions?
And what did Isenah have to sacrifice to bring the crisis to an end?
His forthcoming press conference could provide important answers.
THE BIGGER LESSON: HOW BAYELSA POLITICS WORKS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
The Isenah saga offers an opportunity to examine a recurring question in Bayelsa politics: the relationship between political power, zoning, party structures, electoral calculations and the independence of democratic institutions.
In a state where local government representation, senatorial interests and political alliances frequently feature in leadership negotiations, the speakership controversy illustrates how disagreements over political balancing can affect public institutions.
But there is a fundamental distinction that Bayelsans must understand.
Political parties are entitled to negotiate, build alliances and pursue electoral strategies.
However, the State House of Assembly is a constitutional institution, not the private property of a political party, governor, political caucus or influential godfather.
The Speaker is expected to preside over legislative proceedings and protect the integrity of the institution.
The legislature must also be capable of exercising its oversight responsibilities without undue political interference.
When leadership disputes become dominated by negotiations outside the legislative chamber, citizens have every reason to demand transparency.
The real concern is not simply who occupies the Speaker’s office.
It is whether the institution can independently represent the interests of the people who elected its members.
SEVEN YEARS LATER: WHAT EXACTLY DOES ISENAH WANT BAYELSANS TO KNOW?
Isenah’s latest announcement is significant because it suggests that the public account of the 2019 crisis may not contain everything he believes happened.
He says he has kept quiet for approximately seven years.
He says he wanted to publish his memoirs.
He says he was advised against publishing them at this time.
And he now says he can no longer continue keeping quiet.
That statement naturally raises questions about the people and circumstances surrounding the advice against publishing his memoirs.
Who advised him?
What were their reasons?
Does his memoir contain politically sensitive information?
Does it identify individuals who allegedly participated in the negotiations?
Does it contain documentary evidence, correspondence, meeting records or other materials that could help establish what happened?
These are legitimate questions, but the answers must come from Isenah himself.
Tarakirivoice will not substitute speculation for evidence.
QUESTIONS THE FORMER SPEAKER MUST ANSWER
As Bayelsans await his promised press conference, the following questions deserve direct answers:
- Who negotiated the alleged agreement surrounding his emergence as Speaker in June 2019?
- Was there a written agreement, or was the arrangement purely verbal?
- What exactly was agreed between him and the PDP leadership?
- Did Governor Seriake Dickson personally participate in discussions concerning his resignation?
- Was his removal connected to the emergence of Douye Diri as the PDP governorship candidate?
- Who decided that Southern Ijaw should produce his successor?
- What happened during the meetings preceding September 30, 2019?
- Why did 17 lawmakers proceed with his removal after he announced an indefinite adjournment?
- What happened during the reconciliation process that produced his eventual resignation?
- Were any political promises or concessions made to secure his resignation?
- Why has he remained silent for approximately seven years?
- What exactly is contained in the memoirs he wanted to publish, and why was he advised against publishing them now?
These questions are not accusations against any individual. They are issues that deserve clarification in the interest of Bayelsa’s political history.
TARAKIRIVOICE POSITION: BAYELSA DESERVES THE TRUTH, NOT ANOTHER ROUND OF POLITICAL PROPAGANDA
The people of Bayelsa State deserve to understand how decisions affecting their democratic institutions are made.
The 2019 speakership controversy was not merely a personal disagreement between two politicians.
It involved the leadership of the legislature, the ruling party’s internal power structure, the politics of local government representation and the electoral calculations surrounding a governorship election.
It also exposed the tension between political agreements and the constitutional independence of elected institutions.
Now that Tonye Emmanuel Isenah has indicated his willingness to speak, Bayelsans deserve a comprehensive account.
We encourage him to make available any relevant documentary evidence supporting his claims, identify the individuals involved in the events he intends to discuss and provide a clear chronology of what happened.
We also believe that Seriake Dickson, Douye Diri, Monday Bubou-Obolo and other relevant political actors should have an opportunity to respond to any specific allegations arising from his account.
The objective must be historical clarity, accountability and public education, not political persecution.
After seven years of silence, the central question is no longer simply why Tonye Isenah lost the speakership. It is what really happened behind the political negotiations that brought him into the office, the circumstances that forced him out and the events that led to his eventual resignation.
Bayelsa is waiting.
And when Isenah finally addresses the press, the state will be watching to see whether the questions surrounding one of its most controversial legislative episodes will finally receive answers.
TARAKIRIVOICE — WITHOUT FEAR NOR FAVOUR.
