By DAVID WILLIAM

The unfolding political crisis in Rivers State serves as a compelling case study of power struggles, political realignments, and federal interventions that have significantly impacted Nigeria’s democratic landscape. The turbulence in the state, which escalated shortly after Governor Siminalayi Fubara assumed office, has raised fundamental questions about governance, loyalty, and constitutional authority. At the heart of the crisis is the fractured relationship between former Governor Nyesom Wike and his successor, the impeachment saga that led to the bombing of the state House of Assembly, the intervention of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, and the recent Supreme Court judgment. These events have culminated in an unprecedented declaration of a state of emergency, further deepening Nigeria’s political discourse.

The Genesis of the Crisis: A Marriage of Convenience Gone Sour

To understand the present turmoil in Rivers State, it is imperative to examine the circumstances that led to the political discord between Nyesom Wike and Siminalayi Fubara. Wike, a formidable political force in Rivers State and the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), played a decisive role in Fubara’s emergence as governor. However, what was initially perceived as a seamless transition of power quickly degenerated into a fierce battle for political supremacy.

The tensions arose from allegations that Wike sought to maintain control over the state’s political and administrative structure despite handing over the governorship to Fubara. The new governor, in a bid to assert his independence, resisted Wike’s perceived influence, leading to an inevitable rift. The division was further exacerbated by the realignment of political loyalties within the state legislature, with some lawmakers defecting from Fubara’s camp to Wike’s, triggering a crisis of legitimacy.

Political Betrayal and Power Tussle: The Wike-Fubara Feud

The political brickbats between Wike and Fubara became public as accusations and counter-accusations flew across party lines. Fubara accused Wike of attempting to control his administration, while Wike and his loyalists saw Fubara’s resistance as a betrayal of the political structure that brought him to power. The discord extended to the Rivers State House of Assembly, where impeachment proceedings against Fubara gained momentum.

In a dramatic turn of events, the crisis escalated into a violent confrontation. The Rivers State House of Assembly complex was set ablaze in what was widely reported as an attempt to prevent Fubara’s impeachment. The burning of the assembly sent shockwaves across the nation, symbolizing the deep-rooted political hostility in the state. While the governor’s camp dismissed allegations of his involvement, many viewed the arson as a desperate move to consolidate power.

Presidential Intervention: A Cautious Approach with Limited Gains

Amid the escalating tensions, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu intervened to douse the flames of political instability in Rivers State. The President initially sought a diplomatic resolution by engaging with both factions to broker peace. His intervention led to a temporary truce, as both parties appeared to agree on a ceasefire. However, the fundamental Issues that fueled the crisis remained unresolved, and the animosity between the rival camps persisted.

The President’s mediation efforts were perceived by some as a political balancing act, as Wike remains a key figure in the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) while Fubara leads the state as a governor under the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). The inability to completely reconcile the factions meant that the crisis lingered, eventually leading to further legal and constitutional confrontations.

The Supreme Court Judgment: Condemnation of Despotic Governance

The political turmoil in Rivers State reached a critical juncture with the Supreme Court’s judgment in February 2025. The apex court delivered a scathing verdict against Governor Fubara’s administration, highlighting several constitutional violations.

Justice Emmanuel Akomaye, delivering the unanimous verdict, criticized Governor Fubara for undermining legislative processes. The court noted that Fubara presented the state’s appropriation bill to a four-member assembly, excluding 28 constituencies – a move deemed unconstitutional. The judgment condemned this action as a clear violation of prior orders requiring the governor to resubmit the 2024 budget to a properly constituted assembly led by Speaker Martin Amaewhule.

Furthermore, the court addressed the alleged defection of 28 lawmakers, describing Governor Fubara’s response as an authoritarian attempt to hinder the assembly’s functions. The demolition of the Rivers State House of Assembly Complex was also condemned, with the court labeling it an abuse of executive power intended to silence the legislature.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court ordered the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Accountant General of the Federation to withhold funds from the Rivers State Government until compliance with previous court rulings. This decision underscored the judiciary’s stance against executive overreach and emphasized the necessity of adhering to constitutional provisions.

State of Emergency: A Necessary Measure or Executive Overreach?

Faced with continued instability in Rivers State, President Tinubu took the extraordinary step of declaring a state of emergency, effectively suspending the governor, his deputy, and the state lawmakers for six months. This decision has sparked intense debate across political and legal circles, with opinions sharply divided on whether the President’s action was justified.

Proponents of the emergency rule argue that the security situation in the state had deteriorated to a level that warranted decisive federal intervention. They contend that the move was necessary to restore order and prevent a full-scale breakdown of law and governance. However, critics view the state of emergency as an excessive use of executive power, setting a dangerous precedent for democracy in Nigeria.

Opponents also argue that the crisis, while severe, did not justify the complete dissolution of an elected government. Some see the action as politically motivated, aimed at reinforcing Wike’s influence over the state while weakening Fubara’s grip on power. The emergency rule has further polarized political discourse in Nigeria, with some questioning whether the federal government’s response was in line with democratic principles.

Conclusion: The Future of Rivers State’s Political Landscape

The unfolding crisis in Rivers State is a stark reminder of the fragility of Nigeria’s political system, where power struggles often overshadow governance. The rift between Wike and Fubara has exposed deep-seated issues of political control, loyalty, and constitutional governance. The events surrounding the bombing of the state assembly, the Supreme Court ruling, and the declaration of a state of emergency will have lasting implications on the democratic process in Nigeria.

Going forward, the resolution of the Rivers State crisis will require more than executive decrees or judicial pronouncements. A genuine commitment to democratic values, respect for institutional integrity, and a departure from the politics of dominance will be essential. Rivers State, with its rich economic and political significance, cannot afford prolonged instability. The future of its governance will depend on whether political actors choose dialogue over conflict, consensus over division, and constitutional order over impunity.

Ultimately, the crisis presents an opportunity for Nigeria to reexamine the relationship between federal power and state autonomy. If handled with wisdom and maturity, it could serve as a case study In political conflict resolution. However, if mishandled, it could set a dangerous precedent that threatens the stability of Nigeria’s democratic institutions.

•Dr. David William writes from Uyo, Akwa Ibom State.