Opinion

Aftermath of Fubara’s declaration: why a guber bid remains unlikely

Published

2 months ago

May 21, 2026

Chigozin Obinna

An analysis suggests Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s possible 2027 governorship ambition faces political, legal and structural challenges in Rivers State

Kayode Adebiyi

The political atmosphere in Rivers State has once again been stirred following the recent press release by Governor Siminalayi Fubara, in which he reportedly clarified that he is not participating in the APC governorship primary ahead of the 2027 election.

Also read: Luis Enrique Hails Arsenal Ahead of Champions League Final

Expectedly, the development has triggered a wave of reactions among political observers and supporters. Some, driven more by emotion than political realism, have already begun speculating that Governor Fubara may eventually defect to another political platform, including fringe or emerging parties, to pursue a governorship ambition in 2027.

But such assumptions appear more emotional than strategic.

Anyone who has carefully observed Governor Fubara’s antecedents, disposition, and political conduct would understand why such a move remains highly improbable.

This is not to diminish his intellectual capacity or professional accomplishments. By every indication, Governor Fubara appears to be a brilliant, chartered accountant whose rise through the civil service reflects competence, discipline, and administrative excellence. His educational background and career trajectory speak for themselves.

However, excellence in bureaucracy does not automatically translate into political dexterity.

Fubara’s natural makeup appears more aligned with the world he occupied before politics thrust him into executive leadership: a highly educated, career driven technocrat who rose through an organised bureaucratic structure to become the Rivers State Accountant-General through diligence and competence and would ordinarily retire quietly and honourably after distinguished service.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

But it also says something important about political temperament.

Politics, particularly Rivers politics, is not the civil service. It is not governed merely by procedure, technical expertise, or professional competence.

It is a jungle of competing interests, shifting alliances, betrayals, power calculations, and survival instincts.

It demands tactical patience, emotional restraint, strategic thinking, and, above all, an understanding that power is rarely exercised emotionally.

This is precisely why the suggestion that Governor Fubara would independently leave for another political party and mount a fierce governorship battle in 2027 appears farfetched.

But even beyond questions of political temperament, there is now a significant legal and procedural hurdle: the Electoral Act 2026.

The new electoral framework has substantially narrowed the pathway for opportunistic political defections and last-minute political realignments.

Political parties are now required to submit membership registers to INEC well ahead of their primaries, and only individuals whose names appear in those registers can validly participate as aspirants.

In practical terms, the old political culture where a politician simply loses out in one platform and suddenly migrates to another to secure an election ticket has become considerably more difficult.

This means that even if Governor Fubara were hypothetically inclined to pursue a governorship ambition through another platform, the legal pathway is no longer as flexible as it once was. Timing, party membership, compliance with INEC regulations, and pre-established political structures now matter far more than before.

Yet even this legal reality is only part of the story.

The deeper issue remains political disposition.

The stakes in Rivers politics are extraordinarily high. It is not a terrain for reluctant combatants or political idealists. It rewards organisation, resilience, tactical aggression, and the ability to survive prolonged political warfare.

And if there is one thing recent history has shown, it is that Governor Fubara does not appear naturally wired for that kind of politics.

It is difficult to forget that barely six months into office, he openly found himself in conflict with the very political establishment that produced him, including the Rivers State House of Assembly and the power bloc that facilitated his emergence.

For those who understand the laws of power, this development was always curious.

Political history teaches that a governor handpicked by an entrenched political structure must tread carefully, dine with a long spoon, consolidate quietly, and, most importantly, secure political survival by securing his second term ticket before attempting to assert full independence. Timing, in politics, is often just as important as ambition.

Yet Governor Fubara appeared to move against entrenched interests almost immediately he got into office.

To some, this reflected courage and principle.

To others, it exposed an incomplete understanding of how power is acquired, managed, preserved, and strategically deployed within deeply structured political systems.

That distinction matters.

Because the same political instincts required to survive a confrontation with an established power bloc are the same instincts needed to independently build a political structure strong enough to contest and win a governorship election in Rivers State without the backing of a formidable political machine.

That is no easy task.

Rivers politics is not for the faint hearted. It is not won by sentiment. It is sustained through strategic alliances, political endurance, and calculated patience.

From all indications, Governor Fubara appears more suited to structured governance than the brutal, unpredictable realities of survival politics.

Again, this should not be mistaken for an attack on his intelligence or competence. Not every effective administrator is necessarily built for the rough edges of power politics.

Some people excel within organised institutions. Others thrive in political combat.

They are not always the same thing.

Which is why the idea that Governor Fubara would suddenly emerge as an independent political war general under another smaller platform in 2027 appears, at least for now, highly unlikely.

In Rivers politics, ambition alone is never enough.

Disposition matters. Timing matters. Structure matters.

Also read: Kanu Nwankwo Celebrates Arsenal Premier League Triumph

And above all, political instinct matters.

Up Next

Insecurity: Questions Raised Over South-West Leaders’ Silence and Inaction

Don't Miss

When Emotion Becomes Policy: Nigeria’s Struggle With Insecurity and Public Outrage

Chigozin Obinna

Click to comment

Opinion

Seven prime ministers in a decade: What Nigeria can learn from Britain’s chaos

Published

6 days ago

July 2, 2026

Mariam Balogun

By Dr Toju Ogbe,

The resignation of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, less than two years after leading the Labour Party to a landslide electoral victory, was dramatic, yet reflected a pattern we have become familiar with in recent British politics.

Also read: Abolish state of origin: A prerequisite for true national integration

Starmer now joins a procession of fallen prime ministers stretching back to 2016 – from David Cameron to Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak.

None of these prime ministers was ousted through military intervention, popular insurrection, or a court order. Rather, each was ultimately brought down by the same political system that elevated them to electoral glory.

To the casual observer, the rapid turnover of British Prime Ministers in the last decade may appear chaotic, or even a symptom of political instability. Some argue that the British electorate has become ungovernable.

However, beneath the apparent chaos at Westminster lies an uncomfortable truth that African democracies would do well to examine, particularly Nigerians who wonder why our democracy has delivered so little despite almost three decades of uninterrupted civilian rule.

The turbulence of British politics over the last decade, presents an important lesson on democratic accountability beyond successful elections.

Once the prime minister is deemed a liability by their own political party, the mechanics of accountability are activated. The daggers are quietly drawn and the ruthless pressure to resign begins.

Every poll and survey on public opinion is closely monitored, local election results are taken as a referendum on leadership. Cabinet resignations begin to gain momentum and backbenchers get restless.

Once the news media smells an internal uprising, they amplify scrutiny of the prime minister, subjecting every move – speech, public appearance, political misstep etc to relentless examination.

Pressure gradually mounts until the prospect of bitter internal leadership challenge becomes impossible to resist. The Prime Minister falls.

For every British Prime Minister, winning an election is merely the beginning of examination, not the end. Political survival lasts only for as long as the prime minister maintains the confidence of his party and the parliament.

This is the muscle of British democratic accountability; a political culture that prioritises institutional survival over individual ambition. Starmer recognised this reality in his resignation speech:

“The question my party is asking now is whether I am best placed to lead us into the next general election. I have heard the answer of my parliamentary party to that question, and I accept that answer with good grace.”

That closing sentence alone is a masterclass in British institutional democracy. The party spoke. The leader listened. The correction comes from within.

Nigeria presents a strikingly different political logic.

Nigeria on the other hand, presents an interesting contrast with a different political logic and culture.

The notion that a governing party would overtly interrogate the performance of its own leader and engineer a transition to someone better equipped to maintain public confidence, is in most cases politically unthinkable in Nigeria.

Political parties in Nigeria do not coalesce around ideological principles; rather, they operate more as electoral instruments organised around powerful individuals.

Internal dissent is often dealt with as betrayals rather than as part of healthy democratic engagement. Godfatherism and transactional loyalties shape political succession and leadership retention.

Once elected in Nigeria, there is an inherent assumption that a governor or president has a fixed two-term lease on power.

While 10 Downing Street is preparing to welcome its seventh Prime Minister in a decade, Nigeria, in contrast, has had only two democratically elected presidents during the same period – one of whom is still serving.

Social and economic conditions may deteriorate. Insecurity may worsen. Campaign promises may be ignored.

Public frustrations may become unbearable. Yet, incumbent governors and presidents often remain insulated from meaningful internal scrutiny and are even routinely anointed as ‘consensus’ candidate for second terms provided loyalties to godfathers, rather than the electorates are maintained.

The consequence is that loyalty, instead of performance is often rewarded at the expense of accountability.

This is not an argument for a revolving door at Aso Rock, as frequent leadership changes, by themselves, do not guarantee good governance.

Rather it is a case for making accountability an integral aspect of party politics in Nigeria.

Although the Nigerian presidential system provides for a fixed four-year term regardless of party confidence, political parties should however, be more than instruments for election campaigns, activated to simply retain or take over power every four years.

Electoral victory, should not be the ultimate goal, but the starting point of public service where democratic legitimacy must be continuously earned.

Equally important, political parties must develop the institutional maturity to honestly evaluate their own leaders. They must prioritise public interest and institutional credibility over loyalty to ‘Godfathers’.

The ultimate lesson from Westminster’s revolving door is clear: the true strength of a democratic system, lies not in the ability to produce leaders, but the capacity to effectively replace them, when they no longer command confidence.

Protecting failing leaders from accountability weakens democracy and political parties must ensure that no leader is more powerful than the institution.

Also read: Madugu Targets Strong WAFCON Title Defence for Super Falcons

As political parties gear up for the 2027 general elections, the political class must decide what matters more: we can continue to reward blind loyalty and endure predictable decline, or discover the courage to demand accountability from those who seek to lead us.