The ongoing political crisis in Rivers State has taken a new turn, with contradictory public statements from suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara and Niger Delta ex-militant leader Government Ekpemupolo, popularly known as Tompolo.
The divergence in tone and intent between both figures reflects not only internal dissonance within the Ijaw support base but also the broader uncertainties clouding Rivers State’s political future.
Fubara’s Surprising Resignation of Will
In what appeared to be an emotionally charged yet calculated public address at a service of songs for late elder statesman Edwin Clark, Fubara expressed a startling detachment from office. His remark, “If I had my way, I would say this is it.
“This is the will of God. I don’t wish to go back there”, stands in stark contrast to the constitutional crisis his suspension has triggered and the legal battle underway at the Supreme Court.
Fubara’s words suggest a resignation that appears strategic: positioning himself as a peace-seeker rather than a power-hungry figure amid escalating political hostilities.
His distancing from statements by Rivers Elders Forum shows a conscious effort to be seen as moderate and constitutionally inclined, though this could weaken the resolve of his political base.
Tompolo’s Assertive Reassurance and Ijaw Solidarity
In contrast, Tompolo’s comments at his birthday celebration send a message of strength, solidarity, and regional pride.
He confidently declared that Fubara would “return to his rightful place,” asserting a collective resolve within the Ijaw Nation to reclaim political space and resist perceived external imposition.
His remarks, while couched in the language of unity and truth, suggest a more confrontational and assertive approach.
Tompolo’s reference to Wike’s unilateral selection of Fubara without Ijaw consultation hints at long-standing grievances over exclusion and marginalization, now re-energized by the current crisis.
Contradictions and Strategic Disunity
This contradiction between Fubara’s passive tone and Tompolo’s militant optimism exposes a strategic disconnect within the Ijaw bloc.
While Tompolo channels grassroots anger and resistance, Fubara appeals to national sensibilities and institutional legitimacy.
This duality may undermine the coherence of their collective pushback against federal intervention in Rivers.
Moreover, Tompolo’s broadening of the conflict to include Bayelsa State and threats to those who “undermine Bayelsa” signal a potential regional escalation of the crisis, with implications for Niger Delta stability and federal government relations.
Legal Battle vs Political Theatre
As PDP governors contest Tinubu’s declaration of emergency rule at the Supreme Court, the National Assembly’s pushback, describing the suit as “frivolous and speculative”, adds another layer of tension.
The legal question of whether a president can unilaterally suspend elected state officials remains unresolved, and the court’s decision will set a far-reaching precedent for Nigeria’s federal structure.
Fubara’s meeting with Tinubu in London further muddies the waters, suggesting backdoor negotiations while public sentiment and regional stakeholders like Tompolo press for justice in the open arena.
But the Federal Capital Territory Minister Nyesom Wike rebuffs calls for reconciliation made by ex-militant leader, Government Ekpemupolo, popularly known as Tompolo.
Through his spokesperson, Wike delivers a pointed response that underscores not just personal pride, but a broader political philosophy of loyalty, accountability, and hierarchy.
Tompolo’s Intervention: Appealing to Brotherhood and Regional Stability
Tompolo’s appeal to Wike was grounded in emotion, cultural symbolism, and an appeal for peace in a region long troubled by volatility.
By framing Fubara’s rebellion as akin to a child disobeying his father, Tompolo aimed to humanize the conflict and situate it within a broader Ijaw/Niger Delta moral framework, one that values unity, dialogue, and reconciliation over power plays.
This approach, however, while sincere and rooted in traditional peacemaking ideals, arguably oversimplifies the deeper political and strategic rift between Wike and Fubara.
Wike’s Response: A Demand for Accountability Before Reconciliation
Wike’s rejection of the call for forgiveness was sharp, deliberate, and strategic.
Through his spokesman, he framed reconciliation not as an emotional or regional obligation, but as a structured process contingent on accountability.
“Forgiveness is not a one-sided affair,” Olayinka declared, implying that any meaningful peace must begin with Fubara’s acknowledgment of betrayal and disloyalty.
By taking this stance, Wike reinforces the idea that political relationships are transactional and rooted in obligation, particularly when power was conferred through patronage.
The emphasis on “sacrifice” and “shielding Fubara” from attacks reiterates Wike’s belief that loyalty is not only expected but enforceable.
A Larger Message on Political Culture in Nigeria
This exchange highlights a recurring theme in Nigerian politics: the blurred lines between governance and godfatherism.
Wike’s camp makes it clear that the conflict isn’t about governance outcomes but about the breakdown of political loyalty. In this reading, Fubara’s major sin was not policy failure but the perceived betrayal of the man who made him governor.
The subtle warning is that rising to power without maintaining fidelity to one’s political benefactor is tantamount to treason, a notion that continues to haunt Nigeria’s democratic institutions.
Peace or Power? Diverging Definitions of Resolution
While Tompolo’s call reflects a desire for regional calm and preservation of Ijaw unity, Wike’s response insists that peace must not come at the cost of political order and respect.
By rejecting what he perceives as a sentimental appeal, Wike positions himself as a defender of political discipline, reinforcing a hierarchy that resents insubordination.
At the same time, this refusal signals Wike’s intent to remain a dominant figure in the South-South political landscape, warning both allies and adversaries that power granted must not be used to undermine its source.
A Crisis of Identity, Strategy, and Sovereignty
Conclusively, the Rivers crisis is no longer just a political standoff between Fubara and Wike, it has evolved into a test of institutional authority, regional identity, and political loyalty.
Fubara’s withdrawal from active confrontation might appeal to national elites, but it risks alienating a base increasingly mobilized by Tompolo’s rhetoric.
Whether Fubara’s “spirit has left the office” or not, the political and constitutional stakes remain high.
The coming weeks will determine whether Rivers State reclaims democratic normalcy or becomes a case study in federal overreach and fractured resistance.
