The political tension between the current Governor of Rivers State, Siminalayi Fubara, and the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, is rooted in a struggle over money-sharing, according to Rotimi Amaechi, a former governor of Rivers State. In a recent interview, Amaechi expressed his concerns about the ongoing quarrel, accusing both leaders of engaging in a dispute that threatens the state’s democracy and governance.
Amaechi, who was born in Rivers State, has been an influential figure in the state’s political landscape for years. He discussed the situation in Rivers State, criticizing the feud between Fubara and Wike, both of whom are prominent political figures in the state. Amaechi suggested that the core issue behind their conflict is not about governance or public service but rather about “sharing money”—a reference to financial control and power.
Amaechi, who is also a former Minister of Transportation, expressed his frustration with the lack of clarity regarding the nature of the conflict between Fubara and Wike. He suggested that neither of the leaders had offered the public a clear explanation of their quarrel, which many believe centers on access to state resources.
The former governor said, “The fight between the current governor of Rivers State and the FCT minister is about sharing money. If not, what is the quarrel? Nigerians don’t dislike corruption again. I’ve not seen anybody on the street querying what the problem is. Can both of them speak to the public and tell us what the problem is about?”
Amaechi’s comments reveal the growing concern among some Nigerians that political leaders in the state are more focused on financial control than on the issues affecting the people. He emphasized that both Fubara and Wike owe it to the people of Rivers State to explain the true reasons behind their public disagreement, which has been escalating for some time.
Amaechi went on to address the broader implications of the conflict, particularly regarding the state’s democratic system. He lamented that the ongoing feud between the two leaders has led to a breakdown in governance, where the state is effectively being denied the practice of democracy. Amaechi pointed out that Rivers State is the only state in Nigeria where democracy seems to be under threat, suggesting that the political atmosphere has become toxic and unstable.
“We are now denied democracy, so Rivers State is the only state in the country that can’t practice democracy,” Amaechi said. “They have imposed a military rule on us.”
The former governor’s remarks alluded to the influence of external powers, particularly the Federal Government, in the political dynamics of Rivers State. He suggested that the ongoing political drama in the state is not merely a dispute between local politicians but is being shaped by larger national forces. This, he argued, has contributed to an atmosphere of political instability that is undermining democratic processes in Rivers State.
Amaechi also criticized the role of the President of Nigeria, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, in the Rivers State crisis. According to Amaechi, President Tinubu’s actions go beyond the constitutional provisions that govern the removal of state governors. He pointed to Section 188 of the Nigerian Constitution, which outlines the legal process for a governor to leave office—either through death, resignation, or impeachment. Amaechi argued that the president’s involvement in removing governors, as he claims to have done in Rivers State, is unconstitutional and destabilizes Nigeria’s democracy.
“The President acted outside the Constitution. Section 188 states how a Governor can leave office either by death, resignation, or impeachment. It didn’t say one day one man called the President of Nigeria will just wake up and throw you out of office. It makes democracy unstable. So that’s what is going on in Rivers State,” he explained.
Amaechi’s comments suggest that the President’s actions have sparked fears among other governors who may not support the current administration, with rumors circulating that the president may remove any governor who does not align with his political agenda ahead of the 2027 elections. This has led to anxiety and confusion among political leaders, particularly in states like Rivers, where the governor has not been fully aligned with the president.
In his critique of the President’s involvement in Rivers State, Amaechi also questioned the justification provided by the federal government for interfering in state politics. He pointed to the argument that insecurity in the state was one of the reasons behind the government’s actions. However, Amaechi dismissed this explanation, drawing attention to the broader insecurity challenges facing other parts of Nigeria.
“If the President said it is because of insecurity, because they blew the pipeline, what about part of the country where there is insecurity?” Amaechi asked rhetorically. “Is the president saying they should impose emergency rule on him too? They can’t because he is a democratically elected president.”
Amaechi’s argument highlights the inconsistency in the application of emergency rule in Nigeria. He pointed out that while Rivers State has experienced security challenges, such as the vandalization of oil pipelines, other regions of the country, particularly the northern states, have faced severe insecurity, yet emergency rule has not been imposed there. He suggested that using insecurity as a reason to undermine democratic governance in Rivers State is a flawed and selective justification.
Amaechi also took the opportunity to discuss the role of the Governor of Rivers State in maintaining security within the state. He made it clear that the governor’s responsibility for ensuring security is limited and should not be used as an excuse for political interference. According to Amaechi, security is primarily a federal responsibility, and the President should not punish a state governor for not addressing issues that are outside of their control.
“Rivers Governor has no security responsibility; it rests squarely on the president. So why punish a man who did not commit an offense?” Amaechi asked.
This statement reflects a broader frustration with the federal government’s handling of security issues across the country and the apparent selective treatment of state governors. Amaechi’s comments suggest that the federal government should focus on providing adequate security resources and support to state governments, rather than using security challenges as a political tool to undermine state leadership.
Conclusion
Rotimi Amaechi’s interview sheds light on the ongoing political struggles in Rivers State, where a conflict between Governor Fubara and Minister Wike appears to be centered around financial control and power struggles. The former governor’s comments highlight concerns about the erosion of democracy in the state, with interference from the federal government and the president exacerbating the political instability. While the conflict continues to unfold, the people of Rivers State remain caught in the middle, with many questioning the true motivations behind the quarrel and its implications for the state’s future.
Amaechi’s critique calls for greater transparency and accountability from all political leaders involved, urging them to address the root causes of the crisis rather than allowing personal and political interests to destabilize the governance of Rivers State.
