The political drama surrounding the removal of Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara has taken a new turn as the African Democratic Congress (ADC) publicly sided with Vice President Kashim Shettima’s assertion that President Bola Tinubu lacks the constitutional authority to remove an elected governor. This development has increased the discussion over the legality and political ramifications of Tinubu’s contentious interference in Rivers State’s government.
The Rivers State political conflict goes back to late 2023, centered on a heated power struggle between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his political godfather, former Governor Nyesom Wike. The disagreement evolved into legislative fights, impeachment threats, and a split House of Assembly, leading to paralysis in the oil-rich state’s government. Attempts at mediation failed, causing President Tinubu to proclaim a state of emergency on March 18, 2025, suspending Governor Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and all members of the Rivers State House of Assembly for six months. A former navy commander, Ibok-Ette Ibas, was selected as the sole administrator to handle the state’s activities during this time.
The suspension and state of emergency proclamation triggered rapid legal and political criticism. Constitutional experts and human rights attorneys promptly disputed the president’s power, using the 1999 Nigerian Constitution. Section 305, which Tinubu’s administration highlighted, does not enable the president to suspend or remove an elected governor. Instead, Section 180 explicitly stipulates that a governor may only leave office by resignation, impeachment, incapacitation, or death.
Lawyers such as Inibehe Effiong and Vincent Adodo openly decried Tinubu’s conduct as illegal, highlighting that the president’s proclamation of a state of emergency must be ratified by the National Assembly before taking effect—a procedure not properly undertaken in this instance. The deployment of armed soldiers to take over the Rivers State Government House before legislative sanction further fanned claims of presidential overreach.
Vice President Kashim Shettima, addressing at a book launch in Abuja in July 2025, distanced himself from the president’s contentious action. Drawing from his personal experience as a previous governor, Shettima highlighted that no president has the constitutional power to dismiss a democratically elected governor. He recalled how former President Goodluck Jonathan’s efforts to remove northeastern governors were foiled by legal advice from leading attorneys and political figures, including former Speaker Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, who insisted on respect for constitutional restrictions.
Shettima’s words subtly attacked Tinubu’s unilateral dismissal of Fubara, underscoring the perils of extra-constitutional operations in Nigeria’s democracy. His attitude has been regarded by political analysts as a plea for respect for democratic institutions and the rule of law, even inside the governing party’s ranks.
ADC’s Support for Shettima and Criticism of the Presidency
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has explicitly backed Shettima’s stance, declaring that President Tinubu has no legal jurisdiction to dismiss Governor Fubara. In a statement reacting to the Presidency, ADC denounced the suspension as a breach of constitutional principles and an insult to democratic administration. The party called for the prompt return of Fubara to his post and encouraged all political players to follow the rule of law and due process.
ADC’s intervention lends weight to the increasing chorus of opposition and civil society voices opposing the executive’s conduct in Rivers State. The party stressed that political disagreements should be settled by legal and democratic methods rather than through presidential fiat or military intervention.
The Presidency, however, has maintained that Tinubu did not dismiss Fubara but just suspended him for six months as authorized under the state of emergency decree. It claims that the measure was required to restore peace and stability in Rivers State, which had been ravaged by violence and political turmoil.
This explanation has done nothing to soothe concerns, particularly considering the National Assembly’s subsequent endorsement of the suspension, which opponents believe was influenced by bribery and political manipulation. The political settlement reached behind closed doors contained terms restricting Fubara’s political future, such as prohibiting him from seeking re-election in 2027 and transferring local government power to Wike’s side.
Legal experts say that the National Assembly’s acceptance of the state of emergency and suspension does not repair the original constitutional violations by the government. The approach, critics warn, weakens the separation of powers and establishes a dangerous precedent for presidential meddling in state government.
The situation in Rivers State raises basic issues about the balance of power in Nigeria’s federal structure and the endurance of democratic institutions. The use of emergency powers to suspend an elected governor without sufficient constitutional underpinning violates the notions of electoral mandate and democratic sovereignty.
The ADC’s acceptance of Vice President Shettima’s position crystallizes a substantial intra-governmental conflict about the constitutionality of President Tinubu’s activities in Rivers State. While the Presidency justifies its involvement as an essential measure to avert political upheaval, constitutional experts, opposition groups, and even some governing party officials contend that Tinubu overstepped his constitutional limitations.
As Governor Fubara’s suspension approaches its six-month mark, the political future of Rivers State remains unknown. The debate shows the continuous fight in Nigeria to balance political power, defend constitutional government, and safeguard the democratic rights of elected officials. The following months will be key in deciding whether the rule of law survives or whether presidential overreach becomes commonplace in Nigerian politics.
Post a Comment