Politics

Rivers Assembly crisis and its cost to democracy

By his own admission, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike directed his handpicked lawmakers in the Rivers State House of Assembly to remove Governor Siminalayi Fubara from office. Abuja Bureau Chief, LEON USIGBE examines how he influenced the state legislature and explores the far-reaching implications for governance, development, and democratic accountability.

WHEN President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State in March 2025, it was the culmination of a prolonged and bitter power struggle that had cast a shadow over governance in one of Nigeria’s most vital states. The political drama, which climaxed with the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and members of the state House of Assembly, also laid bare a troubling reality – one in which the legislature was not an independent arm of government, but a tool in the hands of a former state governor.

The Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike’s admission during his last nationally televised media chat, that he had directed the lawmakers to remove Governor Fubara, exposed more than political rivalry. It confirmed a long-suspected truth: that many members of the Rivers House of Assembly were not accountable to their constituents, but to Wike, who reportedly bankrolled their nominations and political ascension. “I wanted the outright removal of the governor,” Wike said bluntly, “but for the interest of the state, the president did the right thing to prevent anarchy.”

The implications of this dynamic are far-reaching, both for democratic governance and the development trajectory of Rivers State.

Assembly as a political weapon

A functional legislature in a democracy is expected to serve as a check on executive power, articulate the will of the people, and pass laws that advance public interest. But in Rivers State, the House of Assembly, particularly under the current dispensation, has come to represent the opposite. Far from checking executive excesses, the lawmakers have functioned as political mercenaries – siding not with the state governor they were elected to work with, but with a political godfather operating from Abuja.

Wike’s grip on the lawmakers traces back to the 2023 general election. As the then-governor, he wielded significant influence over the Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) candidate selection process in Rivers, ensuring that loyalists, not necessarily popular or independent-minded candidates, clinched legislative tickets. With this strategic capture of the Assembly, he secured a power base within the state, even after moving on to federal duties as FCT Minister under President Tinubu’s government.

The Assembly soon became a primary instrument in Wike’s ongoing feud with Governor Fubara, whom he had personally anointed as his successor. The breakdown of their relationship – marked by mutual distrust, administrative resistance, and eventually, open political warfare – led to a string of Assembly actions aimed at weakening Fubara’s hold on power. These included attempts to impeach him, budgetary sabotage, and the legislative defection of pro-Wike members.

Wike, with characteristic candor, made it clear that the Assembly was acting on his instruction. “People must say the truth, the governor is gone, they are all gone… If there’s anybody they should be worshipping, it is Mr. President for saving them,” he said, referring to Tinubu’s intervention which effectively halted the political implosion by suspending both the lawmakers and the governor, and installing a sole administrator to run the state.

Consequences for democracy

What transpired in Rivers is a textbook example of democratic subversion. At its core, democracy relies on the separation of powers and the independence of institutions. When a single individual, however powerful or influential, can dictate the actions of an entire legislative body, the principle of checks and balances is nullified.

This form of elite capture turns democratic institutions into instruments of personal or factional ambition. It renders elections meaningless when legislators owe their loyalty to a political godfather rather than the electorate. This distortion also creates an environment where governance is driven not by the public good, but by political vendettas and strategic alliances.

By admitting to orchestrating the lawmakers’ rebellion and ordering the governor’s removal, Wike not only revealed the extent of his influence, but also how normalized such practices have become in Nigerian politics. It is not uncommon for governors to handpick their successors and dominate state structures after leaving office. What makes Rivers State’s case particularly alarming is the open defiance of institutional autonomy and the seeming absence of accountability mechanisms to stop it.

Stunted development and governance paralysis

Beyond the damage to democratic norms, Wike’s influence over legislative arm has had a direct impact on development in Rivers State. The prolonged political crisis created a governance vacuum that slowed down public service delivery and infrastructure development. Key projects stalled, civil service morale declined, and investor confidence waned.

With the Assembly locked in political combat rather than legislative productivity, the state’s budget became a battleground rather than a blueprint for progress. Executive orders were challenged not on policy grounds, but political ones. Ministries became split between loyalists and rebels. Even civil society found itself unable to effectively engage with a government that was essentially non-functional for months.

The irony is bitter. Wike, who once prided himself on transforming Port Harcourt and expanding the state’s infrastructure footprint during his time as governor, has now contributed significantly to the destabilisation of the very structures that sustain development. By attempting to govern Rivers State through proxies, he has weakened the democratic fabric and undercut the legitimacy of the current administration – even while calling for political gratitude and recognition.

Tinubu’s calculated intervention

President Tinubu’s decision to declare a state of emergency in Rivers was met with mixed reactions, but it arguably saved the state from descending into outright anarchy. While Wike admitted he was unhappy with the move because he preferred a full-blown removal of the governor, he also acknowledged that Tinubu had saved the state from collapse.

The appointment of Vice Admiral Ibok-Ibas as sole administrator represents a temporary fix to a complex problem. But it also raises questions about the long-term future of governance in Rivers State. Can democratic order truly return when the institutions have been so thoroughly compromised? Will a new crop of legislators emerge in the next cycle who are independent-minded and genuinely accountable to the people?

A cautionary tale

The Rivers saga serves as a cautionary tale for Nigeria’s democracy. It reveals how political godfatherism, unchecked executive dominance, and legislative capture can undermine the very foundations of representative governance. More importantly, it shows how the actions of a few powerful individuals can derail the development trajectory of an entire state.

For Rivers to recover, there must be a deliberate effort to rebuild public trust, ensure institutional independence, and hold those who weaponize democratic institutions to account. Only then can the state move beyond political puppetry and begin to address the real needs of its people.

Until then, the image remains stark: a once-vibrant Assembly, reduced to puppets on a string – dancing not to the tune of the people, but to that of a powerful master behind the curtain.

Leon Usigbe