Connect with us

Opinion

Fubara: Go, going…

Published

on

Fubara

The Rivers godfatherism crisis highlights tensions between political patrons and protégés as governance, legality and stability come under strain

A one-time presidential aspirant in the United States was asked, if he loses the primaries, whether he would accept to be the running mate to the victor, but he quipped: “I hate all vices, including the vice-president!”

Advertisement

Also read: Rivers APC Blocks Impeachment: Governor Fubara’s Leadership Protected

I, too, hate all vices, the vices of godfathers and godsons inclusive! We should not condemn one without condemning the other since both are two sides of the same coin.

In the Nigerian political system of today, it is a kind of willing seller and willing buyer market.

In a similar fashion, when we condemn vote-buying, we must also not forget to condemn vote-selling.

Advertisement

There can be no vote-buying if there are no willing vote-sellers.

It fits perfectly what economists call the law of demand and supply.

Both legs must stand before the law can work.

Advertisement

I am not unmindful, though, of the argument that one can be a victim of the other, but victimhood should not totally absolve anyone of blame if we admit that everyone has a responsibility, and duty, to act as an agent of change if we are to stand any chance of building a just and egalitarian society.

The victim, like Karl Marx posits in the opening words of The Communist Manifesto, must understand that he has nothing but his chains to lose. He has a duty, and a price to pay, if he must move in that direction. Otherwise…

Nothing exists that does not serve a function or purpose; otherwise, it would not exist in the first place.

Advertisement

Look around and see if you can find one such thing that is not serving this or that purpose and for this or that person.

What you abhor or adjure is what someone else embraces and enjoys.

When governments were pulling no stops to wipe out marijuana use was when Peter Tosh sang “Legalize it, and I will advertise it!”

Advertisement

Some political theorists posit that even corruption exists to perform some (inescapable) functions; otherwise, there would be no corruption.

How many traffic offenders in Lagos state, for instance, will choose to go the way of the law and have their vehicle impounded, go for psychiatric test, and then pay a whopping some of money when they can easily part with a paltry sum as bribe and go their way?

So, when prescribed penalties for minor offences are stiff, we inadvertently create loopholes for law enforcement agents to exploit, not to enrich the State but for their own selfish benefits.

Advertisement

I have heard people quote Jesus Christ (specifically in Matthew 5:25 – 26 and Luke 12:58) to kind of support this; akin to how Antonio, William Shakespeare’s character in The Merchant of Venice (Act 1, Scene 3), described Shylock as “an evil soul producing holy witness”

And Jesus said: “Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou has paid the uttermost farthing.” (Matthew 5: 25 – 26, King James Version). Oh-ooo! So who does that?

Advertisement

Most godfathers are taken in by the deceit of their godsons; it is impossible to believe that anyone will back another person for high office if he knew he would be stabbed in the back afterwards.

Many godsons are like Shylock, in Shakespeare’s work quoted above, who use “piety for deceitful purposes”.

And like Anthonio warned his friend Bassanio concerning Shylock, they are “much like rotten apples with a goodly outside.”

Advertisement

I doubt if Nyesom Wike would have supported Siminalayi Fubara if he knew that what he has turned out to be is the kind of person the Rivers state governor is!

Is there anything good with godfathers insisting on choosing their successors? The answer is both “Yes” and “No.”

Yes, because this is a practice not limited or restricted to politics; even in the private sector, it is widely practised.

Advertisement

In social clubs, alma mater organisations, it is the same thing.

Successors are selected well before time and are groomed to take office; and this is well-known to everyone.

To ensure continuity.

Advertisement

To ensure that the right hands are those allowed to take over.

Sometimes if you allow for so-called level-playing ground, the best candidate may not emerge.

As Jesus Christ again said in Luke 16: 8: “And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.” (King James Version).

Advertisement

Why is this so? According to a preacher, it is because the children of this world “are most times more intentional.”

While the children of light are still prevaricating and counting the cost, their wordly counterparts would have quickly made up their mind and seized the initiative.

Before anyone could say “Jack Robinson”, they would have grabbed it, snatched it, and run with it! Does that sound familiar?

Advertisement

So, if the purpose of godfatherism is to ensure continuity, prevent the unworthy from grabbing, snatching, and running with it, so as to ensure that good governance and the dividends of democracy percolate the polity, then, it can be looked upon with favourable eyes.

But even at that, a pool of the best candidates must be allowed to contest and contend. And the process must be transparent, fair and just.

Let it not be a one-man decision or an imposition. Worse, it must not be the imposition of someone who cannot emerge as one of the best in a free and fair contest.

Advertisement

And the purpose must not be for godson to cover the odious tracts of godfather or pander to his vainglorious wishes in such a way that the very purpose of good governance itself will be defeated.

In other words, godfatherism becomes an aberration and an anathema where the best candidate does not emerge; where it is an imposition; where the objective or goal is not continuity for good governance but pandering to the wishes of the godfather, good or bad; and where the interests of the governed are meant to take the back seat, if any at all.

The problem of most godfather-godson relationships in Nigeria the Rivers State example inclusive is that they fail most or all of the litmus tests stated above.

Advertisement

So, the blame must be spread evenly across godfathers and godsons.

A man who, with eyes wide open, climbs the back of a tiger only to think of disembarking on his own terms without considering the consequences cannot, in my view, be reckoned with as a man of wisdom or integrity.

Agreement is agreement, they say, and even among thieves there is nobility.

Advertisement

In my opinion, Fubara knew and planned from Day One not to honour whatever agreement he was entering into with Wike; his interest and goal was simply for the latter to railroad him into office as governor.

Use-and-dump! Wike will have none of that! Armageddon!

This is why Rivers state is on the boil.

Advertisement

The state is said to have a chequered history of godsons betraying their godfathers; yet, they have not learnt any lesson.

Instead, they have taken it as given.

That must be the reason why efforts, up to the presidential level, to help bring peace to that state have floundered.

Advertisement

Is violence in their blood? Is “wahala” in their DNA?

Some actions of Fubara make me cast a ponderous look at the “short-man devil” again and again.

Wike’s actions, obviously, suggest he made a very bad choice of a horse to back and should have himself to blame.

Advertisement

Some have said this is Karma knocking on Wike’s door!

I marveled when Fubara chose to run the state with only 3 or 4 legislators of the state House of Assembly supporting him, passing budgets, screening and approving appointees.

That is egregious.

Advertisement

He bulldozed the state House of Assembly, pretending he wanted to rebuild it! Wasteful!

We operate a democracy and separation of powers between the three arms of government the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary is one of its fulcrums.

According to Baron de Montesquieu’s theory of separation of powers, which has gained universal acceptance and applicability, each of the three arms of government are equal and co-terminus.

Advertisement

In addition, the Legislature performs oversight functions over the Executive arm of government.

The Legislature cannot be so denied and we still claim to be a democracy. Tinpot dictator!

The Rivers state legislators are right to insist that no state governor may operate a budget not passed by the state House of Assembly.

Advertisement

But since the budget in operation in Rivers state at the moment is the one approved by the National Assembly for the state of emergency period, and the budget is still expected to run till later this year, I submit that the Rivers state legislators should get hold of the budget and scrupulously scrutinise it to ensure that it is what Fubara is implementing.

Any deviation from that budget by Fubara without legislative approval is illegal.

Therefore, any impeachment move against Fubara and his deputy on the issue of operating a budget without legislative approval should be held in abeyance for now.

Advertisement

But on any other alleged impeachable offences, the legislators are free to act.

The last time the House moved against Fubara, a political solution by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, couched in the form of a six-month state of emergency, saved the day.

But if, ultimately, a political solution fails in Rivers state, then, the law should be allowed to take its due course.

Advertisement

FEEDBACK

It is not only airports that are proliferated in NIgeria; universities, too, are proliferated.

This happens because we don’t have effective national planning.

Advertisement

So, we have the proliferation of everything. Even states and local governments do not often plan things properly.

When was the last time you heard of a national development plan? – Wale Ajao.

The threat of President Bola Tinubu to the governors (on local government autonomy) was just a facade.

Advertisement

I will not be surprised if the situation continues, with the governors disobeying the Supreme Court judgment and no action is taken by the President to sanction the governors, moreso now that we are entering 2026, the year of political campaigns all over the place for the 2027 general elections! The president needs the governors, and vice versa, to retain their political offices in the 2027 general elections. – Dr. JF Olukotun.

The US airstrike (on terrorist groups in Nigeria) is a welcome development.

It is not humiliation.

Advertisement

While I do not know the intentions of Donald Trump, there is nothing wrong in collaboration to fight a common enemy.

Also read: Fubara Swears In Benibo Anabraba as Rivers SSG

In the past, Nigeria had led the fight against common enemies in other countries. Examples abound! – Kola Oloye.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

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

Published

on

Prime Minister

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending