By Austine Agbo Emmanuel, Kaduna
The crisis that engulfed Rivers State in the past year was born out of a political feud between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his predecessor, now FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike.
What began as a quiet struggle for control of the state’s political structures soon spiraled into open confrontation—leading to the defection of a majority of lawmakers, threats of impeachment, violent scenes at the Assembly complex, and paralysis of governance.
When the conflict reached breaking point, President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency, suspended the elected structures, and appointed Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (rtd) as sole administrator. For six months, Rivers was governed outside its democratic framework.
With Fubara’s reinstatement, questions about what transpired under Ibas have resurfaced. The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the state has openly asked the governor to probe Ibas’s stewardship, alleging that he dismantled Fubara’s governance structures and overreached his mandate.
Others, including APC stalwart Eze Chukwuemeka Eze, have urged Fubara to sack all appointees installed by Ibas, describing them as illegitimate. Civil society groups have also warned against allowing decisions taken under emergency rule to stand unexamined.
The dilemma for Fubara is clear: should he probe Ibas’s six-month administration, and should he sack those brought into office during that period?
On one hand, a probe would meet public demand for accountability. Rivers people deserve to know whether decisions taken under emergency rule were lawful or merely political manoeuvres in disguise. However, such an inquiry could reopen wounds, alienate federal allies, and stall Fubara’s reconciliation efforts. The governor has already shown preference for peace over litigation by refusing to challenge his suspension in court. Launching an aggressive probe now may contradict that stance and reignite tensions.
On the question of sacking Ibas’s appointees, the arguments appear stronger. A governor cannot effectively govern with people he never appointed many of whom may owe loyalty elsewhere. Retaining them risks undermining his authority. Yet, a blanket purge could create instability in the civil service and disrupt ongoing projects. The wiser course may be selective disengagement removing those whose appointments were overtly political or tied to sensitive positions, while retaining technocrats or neutral figures essential to continuity.
In my view, the best path for Fubara is a balanced one. He should resist a politically charged probe against Ibas, at least for now, while leaving room for future audits by independent panels or legislative committees. Such an approach preserves his reconciliatory posture while assuring citizens that accountability will eventually come.
On appointments, he should quietly but firmly reconstitute his cabinet and key offices with loyal, competent aides of his own choosing. Governance thrives when a leader is surrounded by a trusted team not remnants of an imposed order.
The solutions for Rivers State lie in pragmatism. Fubara must consolidate authority by appointing credible aides, rebuild trust with the Assembly, and prioritize visible service delivery. At the same time, he must avoid actions that appear vengeful, as these will fuel the narrative of Rivers being trapped in cycles of political vendetta. A transparent, independent audit later on could provide closure without destabilizing the fragile peace.
In sum, Fubara’s return marks the end of an imposed chapter but also the beginning of a delicate rebuilding process. Probing Ibas may appease partisans, and sacking all his appointees may project authority, but neither alone guarantees stability. The real challenge for the governor is blending justice with reconciliation asserting his mandate without plunging Rivers back into crisis.
ReplyReply allForwardAdd reaction