Fubara: ‘Fayose Has No Right To Dictate To Rivers People’

Spread the love

Fresh political tension has surfaced in Rivers State following remarks by former Ekiti State Governor, Ayodele Fayose, over Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s status within the All Progressives Congress (APC). The dispute centres on Fubara’s identification as “001” in his ward’s APC membership register — a designation often associated with party leadership at the grassroots level.

Fayose, speaking during a televised interview, questioned the legitimacy of such a claim amid the lingering political friction in Rivers. Drawing a parallel with Lagos politics, he argued that occupying the governor’s seat does not automatically translate into being the ultimate political authority in a state. In his example, he noted that Lagos’ political structure is widely regarded as being shaped by President Bola Tinubu’s longstanding influence rather than solely by the sitting governor, Babajide Sanwo-Olu.

According to Fayose, political supremacy in states with entrenched structures is determined by historical dominance and strategic alliances, not just constitutional office. He further suggested that national political considerations would influence the Rivers situation, hinting that Tinubu would not easily sideline Nyesom Wike — now Minister of the Federal Capital Territory — in favour of Fubara.

However, these assertions quickly met resistance from APC leaders in Rivers. The state party chairman, Emeka Beke, rejected Fayose’s comments, insisting that the sitting governor remains the recognised leader of the party in the state. In his view, external voices lack the context to interpret the internal political realities of Rivers.

Beke emphasised that Fayose neither belongs to the APC nor resides in Rivers, making his intervention inappropriate. He maintained that party leadership within the state is clear and constitutionally grounded in the office of the governor.

The rebuttal extended beyond party officials. Chizy Enyi, Coordinator of the Initiative for Transparent Strategy and Good Leadership, accused Fayose of speaking from a position of loyalty to Wike rather than neutrality. He argued that leadership transitions naturally follow electoral outcomes, noting that when Fayose governed Ekiti, he commanded political authority there — but once he left office, that influence shifted.

Enyi strongly dismissed the notion of political godfatherism dictating Rivers’ affairs. He stressed that no individual single-handedly installs a governor or president, asserting instead that leadership emerges from collective political processes and broad-based support. In his words, Rivers people alone determine their political direction, not external actors.

He also advised Fayose to prioritise constructive engagement over commentary that could inflame tensions. According to him, maintaining friendships across political lines is acceptable, but interfering in another state’s political dynamics risks deepening divisions rather than fostering stability.

Commentary and Political Insight

The unfolding disagreement reflects broader debates about political authority in Nigeria — particularly the tension between institutional office and informal influence. In states with powerful political figures, the line between constitutional leadership and historical dominance often blurs, creating room for competing narratives.

Fayose’s analogy with Lagos highlights how entrenched political structures can shape perceptions of leadership. Yet Rivers presents its own unique context, where ongoing rivalry between Fubara and Wike continues to redefine alliances.

Ultimately, the controversy underscores a fundamental question: does electoral mandate outweigh legacy influence in determining political supremacy? For Rivers, the answer may lie not in televised debates but in how party members and citizens respond in the months leading up to future elections.