By IfeanyiChukwu Afuba
Except there's a deux ex machina in Rivers State, the situation in the oil - rich State will get messier. Following the controversial Supreme Court decision of March 1, 2025, that 27 defected members of the Rivers State House of Assembly had not yet lost their seats, tension has risen sharply. What is more, parties to the standoff are continuing to dig in on their positions, with the substantive suit on party defection status coming up on April 30 this year. It's a matter of great concern when a country or tier of government is afflicted with governmental crisis. It's even more so, if the instability is contrived. This is true of the power tussle going on in Rivers State. The conflict is unacceptable because it's a threat first to democracy, to social stability and thirdly, to the welfare of the people. While the confrontation has assumed other tracks in the course of time, the genesis was about usurping governmental authority. It was about sneaking in an unwritten rule of veto power over decisions of the legitimate officers of State. This political aberration has dogged the Fourth Republic from inception in 1999. Between 1999 and 2011, Enugu, Kwara, Anambra, Oyo and Abia States grappled with the oddity of Governors confronted by their financial/political sponsors. The menace, described as godfatherism, was not restricted to these States. The vice has been felt in many States in varying degrees; subtly in several States and dramatically in some others, but always involving pressures of patronage on the Governor.
Some may wonder why we have not had this experience at the Presidency? Why have only the State Governors been affected? States, being sub national governments, are not as powerful as the federal government. Their plight is made worse by Nigeria's history of military rule. The unitary character of military rule has influenced perceptions of government structure and operation in Nigeria. Given that every post independence transition was as dictated by the military, the crafting of a superpower federal government continued at each turn. Twenty-five years of the Fourth Republic has not seen a rollback of this carryover mainly because of the wrong impression that centralised authority is the antidote for separatist agenda. The very absence of State Police already means that Governors are encumbered in enforcement of their executive power. By contrast, the President has the armed forces, Police and paramilitary organisations under him. Compared to the Presidency's oceanic resources, Governors have minimal means of patronage. Thus, the Nigerian governor is automatically rendered vulnerable by the defects of our system.
It's not surprising then, that most of the godfathers who have challenged Governors for supremacy in their States were either sponsored, assisted or encouraged in some ways by the Presidency. No individual or group of individuals could stand up to a state government ordinarily. We find then that in many cases, there's strong efforts by the players to draw the federal government into the fray. In the rare circumstance of not having been propped up by Abuja, the actors nevertheless indulged in presidency name - dropping, sometimes without disassociation by the seat of power. In the occasional event of independent opposition to state authority, the political gladiators are content to wait for the next election, knowing too well the limitations of their capacity.
In the light of the above, the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that she is not drawn into plots by individuals and groups against state governments, even if such actors are functionaries of the federal government. As a political leader of the progressive school and former Governor, President Bola Tinubu is expected to see the larger picture in the Rivers State conflict. While he recently admonished implementation of a peace "agreement" he earlier brokered, the integrity of the State should not be compromised. As parties to the federation contract, federal and state tiers of government have mutually reinforcing relations. Destabilisation of any State is inherently undermining of the federation itself. When a part of the country rocks with crisis, the effect extends beyond the immediate locality. For the international community, the troubled entity is Nigeria. The badge of bad news would be on Nigeria, not the state in question.
This fact was lost on the Obasanjo Presidency when the administration embarked on the illegality of removing state governors in the name of state of emergency. Others on the regime's wanted list were treated to EFCC - induced impeachment. But while the Obasanjo Presidency gloated in demonstration of its supremacy, these assaults on democracy diminished the government and the country's image. Adverse security reports give rise to travel advisories that in turn act as disincentive to economic investment. Mr Peter Obi had told the story of his efforts to bring South African investors to Anambra State before his November 2006 jungle impeachment. Resuming the discussion, months later, on return to office, the potential investors said they were reconsidering the plan on the factor of instability. How? was the natural reaction. The answer was straight. "Your impeachment is a sign of instability."
On their part, the Governors can do a lot to curtail the chances of subversive opposition. While we acknowledge that some power speculators could be insatiable and unrelenting in their offensive, the Governor's standing with the population can make the difference. How does the State chief executive relate with the people? What kind of leadership model is at play? What levels of communication exist between the governor and the governed? How are major government decisions arrived at, communicated and executed? What is the extent of interaction with stakeholders and different constituencies? What is the tenor of inter governmental relationship in the state? What is the tone of engagement? It comes as a surprise for not a few observers that in the Rivers State imbroglio, only five out of the thirty-two House of Assembly members are on the side of the Governor. This raises the question of how the executive leadership related with the legislators. Notwithstanding the cult - like relationship between the legislators and their sponsor, chances are that a fraternal engagement with them from the outset could have cracked the group's wall of solidarity. In politics, there are no permanent alliances. Much more effort should have been deployed towards winning over some of the misguided lawmakers. And there is a lesson here for many State Governors. Some of them do not appreciate the importance of regarding members of the House of Assembly as partners in government. How many Governors operate an informal forum of interaction with the legislators; and at least two times a year? Sadly, in spite of the inherent promises of smooth working relationship, many governors would not travel this route on account of it's leveler effect. Greatness is also about appreciating the worth of others.
We hear about the existence of an elders' body only when there is a big problem as presently obtains in Rivers State. Their intervention is almost always welcome. But once solutions are found to the nagging issues, Governors find no need for them anymore until a new crisis develops. This represents poor judgment. A consultative body of serving and past leaders with a sprinkling of civil society leaders is necessary for good governance. A circle of former governors and deputies, former speakers and deputies, former chief judges, past presiding officers of the national assembly - where applicable - joining the State chief executive in deliberation on key matters of state would be enriching. The benefit of hindsight on how similar issues were tackled in the past cannot be overemphasized. This should be a standing advisory body. A well managed state consultative body would be in a position to contain the Rivers State crisis. It could have even predicted the storm and recommended steps to nip it in the bud.
The Rivers State conflict serves to remind us of how fragile, and how disoriented our democracy is from public service. Part of the reason is that we are still struggling with credible elections. Our elections are not yet measures of acceptability and merit. The Punch of March 2, 2025 reported Achike Udenwa, former Governor of Imo State as saying that "money can buy elections in Nigeria." He did not say anything new except that the confession somewhat helps to bear the pain of legislators shamelessly declaring loyalty to their electoral sponsor rather than to the electorate. But giving up is not an option. The electorate must seek to exercise their constitutional rights, including the right of recalling recalcitrant lawmakers. The reality of checks and balances may still make the power drunk sober. And the people have the last card. Solidarity for the common good can render the influence of money ineffectual. As the timeless saying goes, where there is the will, there's a way.
