RIVERS STATE IN THE EYE OF THE STORM: POLITICS, IMPEACHMENT & NATIONAL IMPLICATIONS.

By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by SaharaWeeklyNG.com

“From Paris to Port Harcourt. A Constitutional Clash, Power Play and the Future of Nigerian Democratic Governance.”

In what can only be described as one of the most explosive and consequential political sagas in Nigeria’s recent history, Rivers State has once again plunged into a constitutional and political crisis that transcends mere state politics in which reverberating across the Nigerian federation and challenging the very essence of democratic governance. At the heart of this unfolding drama is Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his relationship with political heavyweights and the ongoing impeachment proceedings launched against him and his deputy, Professor Ngozi Odu.

This crisis is not a sudden spark but a culmination of prolonged political rivalry, deep factional divisions and contestations over constitutional authority. This write-up does not seek to merely narrate events; it is to contextualise, dissect and scrutinise the interplay of constitutional law, political strategy and democratic principles shaping the crisis in Rivers State whereby leaving no stone unturned in understanding its implications.

A Governor Under Siege: The Genesis of the Crisis.

Siminalayi Fubara (a seasoned accountant turned politician) officially assumed office as the Governor of Rivers State in May 2023 following a decisive electoral victory in what was then a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) stronghold. However, this ascent was not without internal turmoil. His relationship with his political godfather and predecessor, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, deteriorated rapidly, setting the stage for prolonged political strife.

Political observers often quote Alexis de Tocqueville: “A democracy cannot exist without a certain measure of mutual toleration and respect for the rule of law” but yet, in Rivers State, what is unfolding can only be described as a breakdown of mutual political respect, with factional interests dominating constitutional norms.

The House of Assembly (predominantly aligned with Wike’s political camp) has, for the third time, initiated impeachment proceedings against Fubara and his deputy. The motion cites allegations of gross misconduct, including refusal to present the budget, extra-budgetary spending, obstruction of legislative oversight, demolition of the Assembly complex and alleged disregard for judicial directives pertaining to the financial autonomy of the legislature.

Speaker Martins Amaewhule declared that the legislature would pursue due process to its conclusion, even vowing to resign rather than abdicate what he described as constitutional responsibility. Critics, however, argue that this rhetoric masks political theatre rather than due process.

Impeachment vs. Political Sabotage: The APC’s Rejection.

The Rivers State chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC); the ruling party at the national level has forcefully rejected the impeachment move, describing it as “DESTABILIZING, UNNECESSARY and POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.” In an official statement, the party’s spokesperson, Darlington Nwauju, held that while the legislature enjoys constitutional independence, resorting to impeachment against its own governor and deputy “AMOUNTS TO DESTABILIZATION ” and risks undermining governance in an APC-led administration.

The APC emphasized fiscal and constitutional safeguards: the ₦1.485 trillion budget approved during emergency rule in 2025 remains valid until August 2026, and the Nigerian Constitution permits governors to continue spending for six months into a new fiscal year without presenting a supplementary budget therefore nullifying claims that Fubara failed in fiscal duties.

The APC’s stance is not merely partisan defence; it reflects constitutional reasoning. Impeachment under Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution (which defines the grounds and process) must be anchored in clear and demonstrable gross misconduct, grave violations of the law, or misappropriation of public funds. Citing budget timing and procedural disagreements alone does not constitute such breaches.

Renowned constitutional scholar, Professor Itse Sagay, once asserted: “The impeachment power is created by our Constitution as a last resort and not as a weapon of political vendetta.” Without airtight evidentiary grounding, impeachment becomes a tool for factional politics rather than constitutional accountability.

Fubara’s Strategic Diplomacy: The Paris Intervention.

In a remarkable turn of events, Governor Fubara reportedly traveled to Paris, France, to meet President Bola Ahmed Tinubu ahead of the impeachment session, seeking presidential intervention amid mounting pressure from lawmakers aligned with Wike.

This strategic move underscores the governor’s recognition that the crisis extends beyond state legislature corridors, reaching the national political summit. No democracy can survive if its constitutional actors operate in isolation from constitutional anchors at the federal level. Fubara’s decision to brief the president highlights an attempt to balance regional dynamics with national political order.

Tinubu, arguably Nigeria’s most influential political actor, brokered a ceasefire in 2025 when he declared a six-month state of emergency in Rivers State after earlier impeachment attempts destabilised governance. This intervention elevated the conflict from local politics to federal constitutional negotiations.

Civil Society and Legal Advocacy: Critique of the Impeachment Move.

The impeachment threat in Rivers State has drawn widespread condemnation from civil society groups and legal watchdogs. The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) described the impeachment plot as “reckless, unconstitutional, and a grave danger to democratic stability.” HURIWA accused lawmakers of acting at the behest of political interests rather than genuine constitutional oversight, urging President Tinubu to rein in the situation and uphold democratic norms.

The APC Progressive Mandate Group also criticised the proceedings as “constitutionally flawed and politically motivated,” framing it as an affront to the peace accord personally brokered by Tinubu.

These criticisms align with principles articulated by constitutional scholars: impeachment must remain a last-resort accountability mechanism, not a substitute for political dissatisfaction or factional rivalry.

Wider Political Implications: National Stability & Federalism.

The Rivers State crisis is not an isolated event; it strikes at the heart of Nigerian federalism and democratic sustainability. If a governor can be impeached (or threatened with impeachment) predominantly on political alignments rather than incontrovertible legal evidence, then the doctrine of separation of powers is imperiled.

Political scientist Leo Strauss once warned: “When law becomes subject to politics, democracy is no longer a government of law but of persons.” This insight resonates deeply in the current crisis. The Legislature’s actions risk converting constitutional mechanisms into political instruments, weakening democratic checks and balances.

Moreover, the expanded involvement of national party actors and speculation about the roles of influential figures like Tinubu and Wike, suggest that Rivers State’s political storm has strategic implications for national political alignments and the 2027 elections.

The Road Ahead: Constitutional Order, Political Integrity and the Future of Rivers.

The impeachment crisis in Rivers State represents multiple layers of conflict and constitutional interpretation versus political strategy, executive oversight versus legislative assertiveness, and local factionalism versus national political calculus.

At stake is not merely the political survival of Governor Fubara but the integrity of Nigeria’s democratic institutions. As respected democracy scholar Larry Diamond asserts: “Democracy is more than elections; it is about predictable, transparent governance under the rule of law.”

For Rivers State, the crisis is a stern test of constitutional resilience, political maturity and democratic fortitude. If constitutional processes are subverted for factional ends, the state (and indeed the nation) risks eroding public trust in democratic governance.

As events continue to unfold, Nigerians must watch closely: not just for who wins the political battle in Rivers State, but for whether constitutional order, judicial independence and the rule of law prevail in the face of political turbulence.

Published by SaharaWeeklyNG.com