Yesterday’s return to Port Harcourt of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, and the quiet stealing away of the sole administrator, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (rtd), are two poignant dents on the nation’s democracy. How the country progresses from here will undoubtedly define the character of the democracy Nigeria practises.
Remarkably, some have praised President Bola Tinubu for not extending the suspension of thegovernor and the democratic structures in Rivers State beyond the six months he had initially proclaimed. Many opposition voices, however, insist that thepresident erred in the first instance by unilaterally removing an elected governor from office.
Till date, the president’s enablers are yet to find the constitutional basis for his action. Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution outlines six clear circumstances under which the president may declare a state of emergency. None of these was met in the case of Rivers.
Yes, by the time the emergency was declared, Rivers State was in political turmoil. Governor Fubara was at daggers drawn with the majority of lawmakers in the State Assembly. The bitter feud with his predecessor, turned estranged benefactor, Nyesom Wike, had paralyzed governance. Yet even that crisis hardly qualified as a breakdown of law and order warranting federal intervention. The courts were still sitting. The police and other security agencies remained functional. Civil administration had not collapsed.
A Dangerous Precedent
The declaration and suspension of democratic institutions set a dangerous precedent. If the president can, at will, remove an elected governor under circumstances not envisaged by the constitution, what then protects the autonomy of other states? Rivers is one of Nigeria’s most strategicstates—politically, economically, and symbolically. To toy with its constitutional framework undermines the federal principle.
Fubara’s reinstatement, however, carries an even more troubling dimension. Reports filtering from behind closed doors suggest that the governor’s return was conditioned on concessions that strip him of the very powers that make his office meaningful. Among the alleged conditions:
•Retaining commissioners and advisers loyal to Wike.
•Ceding control of the legislature to pro-Wike lawmakers.
•Avoiding any probes into his predecessor’s administration.
•And, perhaps most stunningly, an agreement not to seek re-election in 2027.
If these conditions are true, then Nigeria has on its hands what may be its most powerless governor in history—a leader reduced to a ceremonial occupant of Government House.
The Irony of Reinstatement
In the theatre of Nigerian politics, reinstatement has often been equated with victory. Governors suspended or impeached in controversial circumstances returnto thunderous receptions. Crowds poured into Port Harcourt as well, jubilating at the end of emergency rule. Yet beneath the dancing and solidarity songs lies a deep irony: the man of the moment may be more diminished now than when he was ousted.
Fubara’s silence in the days following reinstatement did little to reassure his supporters. His absence from the public stage, even after the lifting ofemergency rule, raised questions about his autonomy. That Nyesom Wike, now Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, was the one speaking on Channels Television to declare peace, claiming to have forgiven Fubara and spoken with him, only deepened suspicions about where the real power lies.
Godfathers and Governors
Nigeria’s Fourth Republic has never lacked godfather-governor tussles. Chris Ngige’s abduction in 2003 by Chris Uba’s loyalists in Anambra, Peter Obi’s battles with financiers, and Akinwunmi Ambode’s one-term fate under Bola Tinubu’s machine in Lagos are reminders that godfathers often test the resilience of governors. Yet, in most of these cases, governors fought back, sometimes at great cost, but at least asserted their constitutional autonomy.
What makes Fubara’s case unique is the appearance of surrender. Rather than waging a bruising fight, he has reportedly accepted conditions that shackle his tenure from the outset. That raises a disturbing question: is Rivers State now governed by an elected governor or by an unelected powerbroker in Abuja?
Implications for Democracy
The implications for Nigeria’s democracy are stark. First, it cheapens the electoral mandate. If a governor elected by millions of citizens can be sidelined by elite bargains, then the people’s vote is devalued. Second, it entrenches the culture of impunity, where constitutional safeguards are ignored in the pursuit of political convenience. Third, it undermines federalism byallowing the center—or powerful godfathers—to dictate the pace of governance instates.
Most dangerously, it could inspire copycats. If Rivers’ model of elite-imposed power-sharing is seen as workable, other powerful figures may replicate it intheir states, reducing elected governors to pawns.
The Road Ahead
For Fubara, the road ahead is fraught with challenges. He must find a way to govern within the narrow space left for him, while retaining the loyalty of a populace that expects tangible dividends of democracy. If he fails to assert himself, herisks being remembered not for policies or projects, but for being Nigeria’s most powerless governor.
For Tinubu, the Rivers saga will remain a test of statesmanship. While he may have averted a violent escalation in the short term, the constitutional questions raised by his intervention will haunt his administration. History may judge him not by the peace proclaimed in Port Harcourt, but by the precedent of executive overreach he normalized.
And for Wike, the saga cements his reputation as one of Nigeria’s most formidable political powerbrokers. Yet his triumph may also plant the seeds of resentment. Rivers people may tolerate the appearance of peace, but they will not forever ignore the reality of a governor in chains.
Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s reinstatement should have been a victory for democracy. Instead, it risks becoming a symbol of its fragility. He returns to office under conditions that, if true, make him less of a governor and more of a political hostage.
Nigeria’s democracy is tested not by elections alone, but by what happens after the votes are counted. In Rivers, the verdict so far is troubling: democracy restored on paper, but emptied of substance. If nothing changes, history will remember Fubara not as a reformer, not even as a fighter, but as the most powerless governor in the nation’s history.
The post A Governor In Chains, by Emmanuel Aziken appeared first on Vanguard News.
