Opinion
That Bill On Women Right To Own Property
The clamour for women to own property in their father’s house as captured and so titled, before the Rivers State House of Assembly is thought-provoking and a source of concern to objective minds.
In the Christian faith where marriage is adjudged sacrosanct and is viewed from the perspective of God —the originator, the mere thought of giving right to own property to women in their father’s house without an objective and clear cut analysis on the category of women it is aimed at, is to say the least very nauseating.
The reason is not far-fetched. Women by divine design are created for men to be married out of their families.
Adam and Eve’s relationship is a prototype of the ideal marriage where a couple in matrimonial alliance should engage in the life long relationship to the exclusion of all other humans, including father and mother of both parents “for better and for worse until death do us part”. The essence is to avoid all distractions capable of encumbering a seamless operation of the family.
Already, the family is the most endangered human institution because it is the prime target of the devil’s onslaught against humanity. It is instructive to state that aside salvation-for Christains indeed- the next thing that the devil is determined to destroy is the family.
That is why people should commit to strengthen the family and its values. A failed family will inevitably produce a failed society. Aside its veritable role as the primary agency of socialisation, the family is the heart beat of God designed to drive the Kingdom project of the Great Commission.
The feminist bill of giving right to a woman in her father’s house in a Christian context, seems to negate the concept of marriage in a subjective view as a Christian.
Without argument, every child, male or female deserves to be treated equally, and given rights due them. However the yearning for the recognition of women’s rights should be viewed beyond the protection of their right. Such demand can also translate to apathy and failed marital relationship. Like the constitutional provision that gives equal rights to children born out of wedlock and products of marriage, is capable of promoting perversion of marriage and promiscuity so it is feared that the property right bill for women, is not without negative effects on families and society.
Agreed that “Change”, according to a philosopher, Permedis, “is the only thing that is permanent”. Life is not static, so the dynamics of life demands a corresponding response from society. If humans who are operators of the institutions of society must remain relevant, cultural values are not absolute. They are relative and subject to change where and when the people deem it necessary, provided such values do not have moral and ethical implications. And provided the change will not translate to infraction over time.
The bill on the right for women to own property in their father’s house appears to be good on face value if we will defined and the gray areas addressed.
However, if passed into law with the ambiguity that beclouds it, the law will have far reaching negative consequences on marriage, matrimonial families and the society.
The concept of marriage originated from God. And God designed that husband and wife relationship must be to the exclusion of all others devoid of any external influence and interferences.
To reinforce this truth the Bible states “….for this reason shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to the wife and both shall remain one”.
The concept of marriage is rooted in indivisibility. The husband and wife are seen as one indivisible entity, hence the subsequent injunction, “therefore, what God has joined together, no man should put asunder”
Biologically, every woman is born into a family but at marriage, a woman becomes a member of the family of the husband with complete right and privileges accruing to her.
The principle also applies in church membership. It is believed that a woman’s place of worship Is determined by the husband’s place of worship. So a woman does not have a permanent worship place until she is married.
The idea is to strengthen the marriage institution which is the bedrock and basic unit of any society.
The right to own private property is fundamental. And there is nothing wrong if a married woman jointly owns property with her husband. The husband and wife married according to custom and law (marriage statutes) are one and joint ownership of property subsists even at the death of either spouse.
While it is necessary to protect women from abuses by some men who do not understand the value of a woman, the sponsor(s) of the bill on the right of women to own property in their father’s house should clearly define the category of women. Is it single women who of no fault of theirs are not married so elect to remain in their father’s house instead of living in pleasure and waywardness? Is it women who are divorced as a result of irreconcilable differences, so they chose to return to their father’s house? Or is it women who have no male sibling to protect their father’s heritage at the event of death as was the case of Zelophadad’s daughters whose father had no male child so they demanded that their father should be given land. And God granted their request?
If these were the categories of women the bill seeks to protect, then it is welcome. But if it includes even the married women then the bill leaves much to be desired and a bad taste in the mouth.
This is because the bill negates the core concept of marriage of “exclusiveness for unity of the family”.
Married women should rather be encouraged to invest their time and resources in building their matrimonial homes.
Beyond the lofty and laudable ideas and vision of the sponsors, the bill if passed into law can divide or distract the attention of married women from their husband’s home, create a sense of disloyalty and lack of submission to their husband. Wife’s submission and husband’s love are key ingredients for a successful marriage.
The act is also likely to unintentionally and covertly advocate for the Father’s House Option” or alternative in marriage. It gives the woman a soft landing to return to her father’s house just in case marriage failed.
This is potentially dangerous for a society that is fraught with several challenges of marriage including divorce, separation and uneasy calm.
By: Igbiki Benibo
Opinion
Why Reduce Cut-Off Mark for C.O.E ?
Opinion
Welcome! Worthy Future For R/S
Opinion
Restoring Order, Delivering Good Governance
The political atmosphere in Rivers State has been anything but calm in 2025. Yet, a rare moment of unity was witnessed on Saturday, June 28, when Governor Siminalayi Fubara and Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Chief Nyesom Wike, appeared side by side at the funeral of Elder Temple Omezurike Onuoha, Wike’s late uncle. What could have passed for a routine condolence visit evolved into a significant political statement—a symbolic show of reconciliation in a state bruised by deep political strife.
The funeral, attended by dignitaries from across the nation, was more than a moment of shared grief. It became the public reflection of a private peace accord reached earlier at the Presidential Villa in Abuja. There, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu brought together Governor Fubara, Minister Wike, the suspended Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, Martin Amaewhule, and other lawmakers to chart a new path forward.
For Rivers people, that truce is a beacon of hope. But they are not content with photo opportunities and promises. What they demand now is the immediate lifting of the state of emergency declared in March 2025, and the unconditional reinstatement of Governor Fubara, Deputy Governor Dr. Ngozi Odu, and all suspended lawmakers. They insist on the restoration of their democratic mandate.
President Tinubu’s decision to suspend the entire structure of Rivers State’s elected leadership and appoint a sole administrator was a drastic response to a deepening political crisis. While it may have prevented a complete breakdown in governance, it also robbed the people of their voice. That silence must now end.
The administrator, retired naval chief Ibok-Ette Ibas, has managed a caretaker role. But Rivers State cannot thrive under unelected stewardship. Democracy must return—not partially, not symbolically, but fully. President Tinubu has to ensure that the people’s will, expressed through the ballot, is restored in word and deed.
Governor Fubara, who will complete his six-month suspension by September, was elected to serve the people of Rivers, not to be sidelined by political intrigues. His return should not be ceremonial. It should come with the full powers and authority vested in him by the constitution and the mandate of Rivers citizens.
The people’s frustration is understandable. At the heart of the political crisis was a power tussle between loyalists of Fubara and those of Wike. Institutions, particularly the State House of Assembly, became battlegrounds. Attempts were made to impeach Fubara. The situation deteriorated into a full-blown crisis, and governance was nearly brought to its knees.
But the tide must now turn. With the Senate’s approval of a record ?1.485 trillion budget for Rivers State for 2025, a new opportunity has emerged. This budget is not just a fiscal document—it is a blueprint for transformation, allocating ?1.077 trillion for capital projects alone. Yet, without the governor’s reinstatement, its execution remains in doubt.
It is Governor Fubara, and only him, who possesses the people’s mandate to execute this ambitious budget. It is time for him to return to duty with vigor, responsibility, and a renewed sense of urgency. The people expect delivery—on roads, hospitals, schools, and job creation.
Rivers civil servants, recovering from neglect and under appreciation, should also continue to be a top priority. Fubara should continue to ensure timely payment of salaries, address pension issues, and create a more effective, motivated public workforce. This is how governance becomes real in people’s lives.
The “Rivers First” mantra with which Fubara campaigned is now being tested. That slogan should become policy. It must inform every appointment, every contract, every budget decision, and every reform. It must reflect the needs and aspirations of the ordinary Rivers person—not political patrons or vested interests.
Beyond infrastructure and administration, political healing is essential. Governor Fubara and Minister Wike must go beyond temporary peace. They should actively unite their camps and followers to form one strong political family. The future of Rivers cannot be built on division.
Political appointments, both at the Federal and State levels, must reflect a spirit of fairness, tolerance, and inclusivity. The days of political vendettas and exclusive lists must end. Every ethnic group, every gender, and every generation must feel included in the new Rivers project.
Rivers is too diverse to be governed by one faction. Lasting peace can only be built on concessions, maturity, and equity. The people are watching to see if the peace deal will lead to deeper understanding or simply paper over cracks in an already fragile political arrangement.
Wike, now a national figure as Minister of the FCT, has a responsibility to rise above the local fray and support the development of Rivers State. His influence should bring federal attention and investment to the state, not political interference or division.
Likewise, Fubara should lead with restraint, humility, and a focus on service delivery. His return should not be marked by revenge or political purges but by inclusive leadership that welcomes even former adversaries into the process of rebuilding the state.
“The people are no longer interested in power struggles. They want light in their streets, drugs in their hospitals, teachers in their classrooms, and jobs for their children. The politics of ego and entitlement have to give way to governance with purpose.
The appearance of both leaders at the funeral was a glimpse of what unity could look like. That moment should now evolve into a movement-one that prioritizes Rivers State over every personal ambition. Let it be the beginning of true reconciliation and progress.
As September draws near, the Federal government should act decisively to end the state of emergency and reinstate all suspended officials. Rivers State must return to constitutional order and normal democratic processes. This is the minimum requirement of good governance.
The crisis in Rivers has dragged on for too long. The truce is a step forward, but much more is needed. Reinstating Governor Fubara, implementing the ?1.485 trillion budget, and uniting political factions are now the urgent tasks ahead. Rivers people have suffered enough. It is time to restore leadership, rebuild trust, and finally put Rivers first.
By: Amieyeofori Ibim
Amieyeofori Ibim is former Editor of The Tide Newspapers, political analyst and public affairs commentator
-
Politics2 days ago
Alleged Money Laundering: Fayose Has No Case To Answer, Court Tells EFCC
-
Politics2 days ago
Atiku Quits PDP, Says Decision Heartbreaking
-
Rivers2 days ago
CDS Urges Communities To Protect Pipelines
-
Politics2 days ago
Bayelsa APC Hails Late Buhari As Change Agent In Nigerian Politics
-
News2 days ago
Shettima, Atiku, Obi Attend Buhari’s Fidau Prayer In Daura
-
News2 days ago
JAMB Uncovers 9,469 Fake Admissions In 20 Tertiary Institutions
-
News2 days ago
NAF Disowns Recruitment Adverts, Says It’s Fake
-
Nation2 days ago
Alumni, Others Launch Campus Care Initiative In Port Harcourt