The recent political turmoil in Rivers State has once again exposed the dangerous grip of political godfatherism on Nigeria’s democracy. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s decision to declare a state of emergency in the oil-rich state has sparked outrage and legal scrutiny, with many questioning the constitutionality of his actions. The suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and the state legislature has been widely interpreted as a move to protect the interests of former governor Nyesom Wike, whose grip on the state’s political structure has been under threat. This development raises fundamental questions about democratic governance, constitutionalism, and the extent of presidential powers in Nigeria.
The rift between Governor Fubara and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike, has been brewing since Fubara assumed office in 2023. As Wike’s handpicked successor, Fubara was expected to toe the line of his political godfather. However, tensions escalated when the governor began asserting his independence, making key appointments without Wike’s approval and resisting moves to control the state’s finances. The feud reached a boiling point when members of the state House of Assembly, loyal to Wike, attempted to impeach Fubara. The political crisis deepened as the governor’s supporters resisted the impeachment, leading to violent confrontations, legislative crackdowns, and a breakdown of order in the state.
The declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State has been widely condemned as a politically motivated act rather than a genuine response to lawlessness. The Nigerian Constitution permits the president to declare a state of emergency under Section 305 if there is a war, public disorder, natural disaster, or breakdown of law and order beyond the capacity of local authorities to handle. However, experts argue that the crisis in Rivers did not meet the threshold for such drastic action. The legal community, including the Nigerian Bar Association, has criticized Tinubu’s decision, pointing out that while the president can declare an emergency, he does not have the constitutional authority to suspend elected officials.
The Rivers State crisis is not an isolated case but part of a recurring pattern in Nigerian politics. Similar incidents have occurred in Edo State, where former governor Adams Oshiomhole’s fallout with his successor, Godwin Obaseki, led to a prolonged political battle. In Kano State, former governor Rabiu Kwankwaso and his successor Abdullahi Ganduje also engaged in a bitter power struggle that destabilized governance. These cases highlight how political godfathers often attempt to control their successors, treating public office as a personal fiefdom rather than a democratic mandate. Such interference stifles good governance and denies the electorate the true benefits of democracy.
Beyond the immediate crisis, this development sets a dangerous precedent for Nigerian democracy. If a sitting president can unilaterally suspend an elected governor and legislature under the guise of emergency rule, what stops future administrations from using the same method to suppress opposition-controlled states? The 2004 declaration of emergency rule in Plateau State under President Olusegun Obasanjo remains a cautionary example. In that case, Governor Joshua Dariye was suspended, and a sole administrator was appointed, leading to widespread outcry. Similar suspensions of governors in Ekiti and Anambra during the early 2000s were also criticized as politically motivated. The echoes of these past interventions in Rivers State suggest that history is repeating itself, with democracy once again taking a back seat to political expediency.
The crisis in Rivers State is a test of Nigeria’s democratic institutions. Will the National Assembly rubber-stamp Tinubu’s emergency declaration, or will it stand in defense of constitutional governance? Will the judiciary uphold democratic principles by challenging this blatant overreach of power? More importantly, will the Nigerian people tolerate the continued subversion of their electoral choices by political godfathers who dictate terms from behind the scenes? If the answers to these questions lean towards political compromise, then the country risks normalizing executive excesses and further eroding its democratic foundation.
As events continue to unfold, one thing remains clear: Nigeria’s democracy is at a crossroads. The Rivers crisis is not just about Fubara and Wike—it is about the future of democratic governance in Nigeria. If the country fails to curb the influence of godfatherism and executive overreach, it will continue to struggle with instability, political violence, and governance failures. The Nigerian people must demand accountability, not just from politicians but from the institutions meant to uphold the rule of law. Only then can the nation break free from the vicious cycle of political manipulation that has long plagued its democracy.
