It’s old hat that an ongoing political turmoil persists within Rivers State, a key petroleum-producing area situated in Nigeria’s South-South zone. The crux of this conflict centers around two principal figures: Nyesom Wike and Sikander Hayat Sarada. Wike has held various influential roles since the millennium; initially acting as a local government chairperson in Rivers State, then transitioning into his role as a federal minister before occupying the position of Governor twice over. To put it succinctly, Wike might well be seasoned with the taste of authority after nearly quarter-of-a-century-long tenure, currently holding office as Federal Capital Territory Minister under the APC administration headed by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Prior to becoming Governor of Rivers State in 2023, Sarada remained relatively obscure due to his work background as the Treasurer-General of Rivers State, where he had long supported Wike’s endeavors.
Maybe this sheds light on why certain political commentators suggest that Wike saw in Fubara the ideal candidate to succeed him in 2023, since Fubara, being his protégé, could potentially shield him from scrutiny over alleged fiscal misconduct during his tenure as governor of Rivers State. However, delving deeper into these allegations would require a separate narrative.
As someone who previously held the position of Accountant General in one of Nigeria’s most resource-abundant states, Fubara should possess significant insight—or at minimum, familiarity—with concepts related to revenue generation and collection mechanisms within Rivers State. This expertise unfortunately marked the inception of discord between Fubara and his superior.
Three months after assuming gubernatorial duties, Fubara requested an assessment regarding recent income streams from the head of Rivers Internal Revenue Service Board (RIRS), whom Wike himself appointed. The RIRS chairperson allegedly reacted with shock and promptly informed Wike, then serving as Federal Capital Territory (FCT) minister, about Fubara’s inquiry.
Wike took issue with what he perceived as audacity and insolence displayed by Fubara. By this point, however, tensions had escalated significantly—anger and wounded ego fueled animosity between them. Plans were even made to initiate impeachment proceedings against Fubara, leading local youth groups to protest violently by torching parts of the legislative building aimed at halting such actions against their fellow Ijaw tribesman, Governor Fubara.
During this period, the Rivers State House Assembly became distinctly split into two camps: one faction supported Wike and was headed by Martyns Amaewhule along with 25 additional individuals who swiftly moved to another section of town to issue an impeachment notice against Fubara; meanwhile, four other representatives under leadership from Edison Ehie—who were ostensibly backing Fubara—also promptly traveled elsewhere within the city intending to suspend the pro-Wike group for failing to adhere to proper procedures and unjustifiably moving forward with Fubara’s impeachment. Both groups sought legal recourse through courts, resulting in conflicting directives being issued. This situation amounted to a clash over political power.
Related Nigeria’s insecurity has hit painfully close to home God’s gift to mankind, and his people knew him not Nothing to be gained from declaration of emergency
It emerged at this juncture that the oil-abundant nation had transformed into a symbol of everything amiss within our country, Nigeria. Currently, Rivers State resembles a battleground where incessant clashes occur between factions committed to affirming human dignity and others intent on eroding it. This conflict pits those doing the pushing against the vast majority set merely for being pushed. The Presidency intervened on December 18, 2023, presenting both sides with an eight-point plan. While Governor Fubara attempted to enforce six points from this resolution, the supporters of Wike persisted stubbornly, unwavering in their stance.
Adding fuel to the fire, the Presidency unexpectedly announced accusations of oil sabotage against Governor Fubara and imposed a state of emergency in Rivers State on March 18, 2025. Several critical queries arise regarding President Tinubu’s decision: Is declaring martial law consistent with democratic principles? Could this action represent veiled nationalism or outright authoritarianism? Does such drastic measure reflect excessive power play rather than genuine governance?
Fundamentally though, one must ask whether these actions have achieved tranquility in the resource-laden region.
In this context, we should interpret peace as the lack of war, fear, disputes, worry, distress, and aggression. This interpretation also implies that peace focuses mainly on establishing and sustaining fairness within societal structures and resolving disagreements through peaceful methods. The renowned Norwegian peace researcher, Johan Galtung, delineated two types of peace: negative peace and positive peace. Negative peace refers to the absence of immediate violent acts such as warfare, terror, and strife at personal, local, and global scales.
On one side, positive peace signifies the lack of unfair systems along with the existence of fairness, liberty, progress, and personal tranquility. Conversely, President Tinubu’s strategy for addressing the political turmoil in Rivers State exemplifies negative peace most distinctly. This implies that although there might not be overt hostility like gunfire or lifeless bodies in Port Harcourt, essential elements such as equity, civil liberties, and democratic governance remain absent. Should Nigeria genuinely aim to settle the dispute within Rivers State, diplomatic dialogue—an effective tool in democratic settings—could have been employed instead.
Dialogue serves as a reciprocal exchange aimed at achieving consensus between parties who share certain objectives yet differ on others. Indeed, the issue in Rivers State calls merely for negotiations allowing broad participation in policy formulation. Declaring martial law does nothing to solve this predicament; rather, it represents an assault on democratic principles. Therefore, the appropriate tactic to address the crisis should involve principled negotiation—a structured form of discussion focused on mutual understanding and fair outcomes.
Such negotiations can be challenging yet accommodating for those involved in the disagreement, focusing instead on resolving matters based on merit rather than through constant bargaining. In this approach, President Tinubu likely sought mutually beneficial outcomes whenever feasible. Where conflicts arose between Wike and Fubara’s positions, he would emphasize basing decisions on equitable criteria unrelated to each party’s desires. Principled negotiation typically stresses substance over personal dynamics; it avoids deceitful tactics and aggressive stances. Instead, it teaches individuals how to secure rightful claims with dignity and integrity. Importantly, adopting such an approach could serve as a significant learning experience for both Wike and Fubara—and maybe future generations too.
In response to the sudden imposition of an Emergency Rule in Rivers State, Port Harcourt presents a satirical blend of comedy and theater to Nigerians. This situation carries a peculiar twist: groups of paid women wearing white attire march with signs endorsing this rule within what should be developing as a democratic space. Simultaneously, another group of women adorned entirely in red garments protest against the same rule, demanding the return of Fubara. Regardless of whether they engage in lengthy demonstrations throughout Port Harcourt or opt for calm resistance, the enforcement of the emergency rule underscores the pervasive sense of Negative Peace present in Rivers State.
Moreover, amidst these three significant figures—Tinubu, Wike, and Fubara—who truly cares about validating human dignity? Conversely, which one aims to obliterate it by treating civilians akin to insignificant insects? The decision rests with each individual! In conclusion, echoing Wole Soyinka’s sentiment, history shall impose severe consequences upon leaders who steer their country toward non-existent goals via deceptive paths, squandering national wealth along the way.
Doki serves as a Professor of Comparative Literature at the University of Jos, Nigeria. This information was provided by SyndiGate Media Inc.
Syndigate.info
).
