Wike Vs Fubara: Godfatherism And Mentorship In The Face Of Executive Overreach

The political crisis in Rivers State has reached an alarming climax with the forced removal of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and the imposition of a sole administrator, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas (Rtd), by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. This action, now backed by both chambers of the National Assembly, signals a troubling shift in Nigeria’s democratic order. While the federal government justifies this intervention on grounds of political instability and security concerns, the move raises fundamental questions about constitutional governance, the unchecked influence of political godfathers, and the thinly veiled invitation for military-styled leadership in a civilian democracy. The struggle for control in Rivers State, originally a contest between Fubara and his political benefactor, Nyesom Wike, has now been elevated to a dangerous national precedent.

At the heart of the matter is the unresolved tension between political mentorship and godfatherism. Wike, as a former governor and now Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, considers Rivers State his political stronghold. His support was instrumental in Fubara’s election, but rather than allowing his successor to govern independently, he sought absolute loyalty. Fubara, however, resisted, attempting to carve out his own identity as governor by reviving projects linked to Wike’s rival, Rotimi Amaechi, and engaging with political actors outside Wike’s sphere. This defiance triggered an all-out power struggle, leading to legislative chaos, an attempted impeachment, a fire at the state assembly complex, and violent confrontations between security forces and political supporters. What was once a personal rift soon spiraled into a full-blown crisis, with neither side willing to back down.

The federal government, in an unprecedented move, declared a state of emergency in Rivers State on March 18, 2025. Governor Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and all state lawmakers were suspended for six months, effectively dissolving the elected government. In their place, a retired military officer was installed as sole administrator. With the Senate and House of Representatives endorsing this action, the message is clear—Nigeria’s democracy is being reshaped in ways that should concern every citizen. If a sitting governor can be removed through executive fiat, with legislative backing, what stops the federal government from replicating this move in other states? What legal or constitutional safeguards exist to prevent further abuse of power?

ALSO READ: US Suspends Funding To University Over Transgender Policy

The Nigerian government and the people of Rivers State must recognize the dangerous precedent being set. By appointing a retired admiral to govern a state under emergency rule, the federal government has, intentionally or not, invited military governance back into the political space. It is well known that military training instills a command-and-control mentality that does not align with democratic governance. The very essence of civilian authority is now being replaced with a structure reminiscent of past military regimes, where obedience overrides democratic engagement. Regardless of his capabilities, a retired military officer will instinctively approach governance with the rigidity and discipline of the barracks, leaving little room for the participatory governance expected in a democratic setting. The argument that this intervention was necessary to restore order falls flat when one considers that political crises are not unique to Rivers State. Other states have witnessed tensions between governors and predecessors without federal interference at this scale. This suggests that beyond governance concerns, political calculations and elite interests are at play.

The removal of an elected governor without due process undermines the very foundation of democracy. Rather than resolving political conflicts through constitutional means, Nigeria is now normalizing executive intervention in state affairs, with legislative endorsement. This is a direct affront to the principles of federalism, where state governments should maintain a degree of autonomy from the central government. What has transpired in Rivers State is not just a power struggle between Wike and Fubara; it is an indictment of the country’s political culture, where loyalty to political godfathers often supersedes allegiance to the electorate. A mentor should guide, advise, and build capacity in their successors, not seek perpetual dominance over them. However, the Nigerian brand of political mentorship has too often devolved into godfatherism—an arrangement where former leaders expect to rule by proxy long after leaving office. Fubara’s resistance to this model, though commendable, has come at a steep cost. His removal, backed by the highest legislative authorities, signals that in Nigeria’s political landscape, defying a godfather can result in state-sanctioned political elimination.

If Rivers State is to regain democratic normalcy, immediate steps must be taken to prevent further executive overreach. The courts must review the legality of suspending an elected governor and replacing him with a sole administrator. Nigerians must demand adherence to constitutional provisions, ensuring that emergency powers are not weaponized for political ends. Political mentorship must evolve beyond its current exploitative nature, fostering genuine leadership development rather than breeding subservient successors. Institutional independence must be strengthened so that state assemblies and judicial bodies are not easily manipulated by powerful individuals. Most importantly, the long-term implications of this crisis must not be ignored. What has happened in Rivers State today could happen elsewhere tomorrow, eroding democratic governance across the country. The silence of the political class, civil society, and the judiciary in the face of such a blatant power grab will only embolden future acts of executive excess.

The Rivers crisis is no longer just about Wike and Fubara. It is now a national test of Nigeria’s commitment to democracy, constitutionalism, and the rule of law. The choices made in the coming months will determine whether the country is truly governed by democratic principles or if it is sliding back into an era where political disputes are settled through undemocratic means. The road ahead is uncertain, but one thing is clear: Nigeria’s democracy stands at a crossroads, and how this crisis is handled will shape the nation’s political future for years to come.

Sir Divramredje Lawrence Efeturi, KSJI, ASCIEPUK (a public affairs commentator), writes from Delta State.