On The Frontline With Boma
There comes a time when persistent noise grows so loud that even those who pretend not to hear are forced to acknowledge its existence. Rivers State appears to have reached that point. For more than two years, the state has remained trapped in a cycle of political tension, uncertainty and endless speculation. What should have been a period devoted to governance, development and service delivery has instead been dominated by political battles, power struggles and calculations about 2027.
There is an old saying that when discipline is neglected at the appropriate time, the consequences eventually become unavoidable. In many ways, that proverb reflects the current situation in Rivers State. A crisis that many assumed would be temporary has lingered far longer than expected, leaving citizens worried about the future of a state that ought to be concentrating on economic growth, infrastructure and social progress.
At the centre of this unfolding drama stands Governor Siminalayi Fubara, a man who emerged through a political structure but who has since found himself locked in a fierce contest with some of the very forces that contributed to his emergence. Whether one supports him or not, it is impossible to deny that the political conversation in Rivers State today revolves around a fundamental question: should a democratically elected governor be allowed to complete the mandate freely given to him by the people?
The answer should not be difficult.
The presidency of Bola Ahmed Tinubu did not emerge solely because of votes from one local government area or one political bloc in Rivers State. The support that contributed to his election came from different parts of the state—riverine and upland communities alike. It came from citizens who exercised their democratic rights based on their convictions and expectations. Among those areas were Opobo/Nkoro, the home local government area of Governor Fubara, alongside numerous others across the state.
Therefore, it is difficult for many observers to understand why the governor should become the target of relentless political hostility merely because of disagreements arising from political interests and expectations. Governance should not become secondary to political supremacy. Public welfare should not be sacrificed on the altar of personal ambition.
The tragedy of the Rivers situation is that attention has shifted from what government is doing to who controls government. Instead of discussing roads, schools, healthcare facilities, youth empowerment programmes and economic opportunities, public discourse has increasingly focused on political manoeuvres, threats, alignments and counter-alignments.
For many citizens, this development appears abnormal. Some even describe it as a form of political recolonisation, not by foreign powers but by individuals and interests who are expected to strengthen democratic institutions. The perception, rightly or wrongly, is that there are forces determined to ensure that Governor Fubara does not enjoy the independence associated with the office he occupies.
Recent discussions in political circles and on social media have only deepened public anxiety. Stories and rumours continue to circulate regarding alleged plans to compel the governor to resign or to create circumstances that would make his continued stay in office difficult. Whether these claims are true or exaggerated is almost secondary. The fact that such narratives persist demonstrates the extent to which political instability has become embedded in public consciousness.
One cannot help but ask: why must the situation degenerate to this level?
Why should a governor who was elected by the people be subjected to continuous political pressure simply because he is perceived to have departed from established expectations? Why should governance become hostage to political disagreements? Why should democratic institutions be weakened to satisfy political interests?
These questions become even more relevant when one considers the political history of Lagos State under President Tinubu’s influence.
Many Nigerians remember the circumstances surrounding the administration of former Lagos State Governor Akinwunmi Ambode. Ambode’s relationship with the political establishment that brought him to power eventually deteriorated. He was denied the opportunity to secure a second term ticket despite his achievements in office and despite interventions from influential figures across the country.
Yet there is a critical lesson from that episode.
Ambode was allowed to complete his constitutional tenure. He remained governor until the final day of his mandate. He was not hounded out of office. The machinery of state was not destabilised. Lagos continued to function. Democratic order was maintained. Political differences existed, but constitutional governance prevailed.
That precedent remains significant today.
If a political structure could permit Ambode to complete his tenure despite obvious disagreements, why should Rivers State become the theatre of endless political warfare? Why should a governor who still has constitutional responsibilities be subjected to continuous threats and distractions?
Democracy is not merely about elections. It is equally about respecting the outcomes of elections and allowing institutions to function according to established rules. Once citizens have spoken through the ballot box, their verdict deserves respect until another election provides an opportunity for a fresh decision.
This is where President Tinubu’s role becomes particularly important.
As President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, he occupies a position that transcends local political interests. He is expected to be a father figure to all states and all political tendencies. While he may have political associates and longstanding relationships, the demands of national leadership require impartiality, balance and a commitment to democratic stability.
The Rivers crisis presents an opportunity for him to demonstrate those qualities.
No state should be allowed to descend into prolonged political uncertainty. No governor should govern under the shadow of perpetual conflict. No citizen should be made to wonder whether political calculations are taking precedence over constitutional order.
The President must recognise that Rivers State is unlike many other states in the federation. It is a complex and strategic state. It is home to multiple ethnic nationalities, diverse political interests and a significant portion of Nigeria’s economic resources. Managing such a state requires sensitivity, caution and a deep understanding of its unique realities.
Actions that may appear politically expedient in the short term can produce long-term consequences. Political exclusion often generates resentment. Perceived injustice frequently breeds resistance. History repeatedly teaches that durable peace is built on inclusion, fairness and respect for democratic principles.
The people of Rivers State are watching. Nigerians are watching. The international community is watching. More importantly, history is watching.
Those who believe that power alone can determine political outcomes should remember that political power is temporary. Public opinion, however, has a longer memory. Citizens may remain silent for a season, but they eventually express their views through democratic processes.
As preparations for future elections gather momentum, political actors would do well to remember that governance is ultimately about the people. Citizens are less interested in elite rivalries than they are in roads, jobs, schools, healthcare and security. They want leaders who solve problems, not leaders who create new ones.
This is why the most sensible path forward is simple. Let Governor Siminalayi Fubara complete the mandate entrusted to him by the people of Rivers State. If political interests have already concluded that he should serve only one term, then let that decision be tested democratically at the appropriate time. Let the electorate decide his fate through constitutional means. Let the ballot box, not political intimidation, be the ultimate judge.
That was the principle that prevailed in the Ambode experience. It should prevail in Rivers State as well.
The state has endured enough tension. The people deserve peace. The governor deserves the opportunity to govern. Democracy deserves respect.
And perhaps most importantly, Nigeria deserves proof that political disagreements can be resolved without undermining the very foundations of democratic governance.
For now, the wisest course is clear: let the sleeping dog lie, let governance take precedence over politics, and let Fubara complete the mandate the people freely gave him.
On The Frontline With Boma is published by The Port Harcourt Telegraph Newspaper authored by the Managing Editor
LET FUBARA COMPLETE HIS MANDATE: THE AMBODE PRECEDENT AND THE RIVERS QUESTION
