Fubara vs. Wike: The Godfather Feud Shaking Nigeria’s Politics
The Fubara-Wike saga is the latest episode in Nigeria’s long-running drama of godfather-godson conflicts. This phenomenon has played out in various states, including Enugu, Borno, Anambra, Osun, Abia, Kano, Edo, Sokoto, Cross River, Benue, and Taraba, shaping the country’s political landscape.
At the core of these conflicts is the struggle for power and control. Godfathers, often former governors, attempt to maintain influence over their successors, who may resist the arrangement in a bid for independence. This unfortunate reality is currently unfolding in Rivers State, where Governor Siminalayi Fubara and former Governor Nyesom Wike have become entangled in a fierce political standoff.
The disagreement reportedly began when Wike submitted a list of commissioners and special advisers to Fubara without his input. This unilateral move sparked a power tussle, with Fubara later challenging some of the appointments and policies imposed by Wike. The situation escalated dramatically, leading to 27 lawmakers defecting from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC). President Bola Tinubu intervened, proposing an eight-point peace agreement, yet the implementation remains a subject of intense political contention.
This is not an isolated case. Similar conflicts have emerged across Nigeria, with former godfathers and their protégés falling out, resulting in political instability and governance disruptions. In Kano State, former Governor Musa Kwankwaso clashed with his erstwhile protégé, Umar Ganduje, further exemplifying the deep-rooted nature of political power struggles in the country. These disputes frequently lead to legislative deadlocks, judicial battles, and, in extreme cases, violence that disrupts governance and weakens democratic institutions.
The history of godfatherism in Nigerian politics is littered with cases of bitter rivalries. In Oyo State, Lamidi Adedibu, the “strongman of Ibadan politics,” played a crucial role in Rashidi Ladoja’s rise to power in 2003. However, their relationship soon soured due to disagreements over governance and the distribution of political appointments. The feud resulted in a gross violation of constitutional norms, culminating in Ladoja’s impeachment by 18 out of 32 House of Assembly members and the deaths of at least eight people.
In Kwara State, Olusola Saraki supported Mohammed Lawal’s gubernatorial bid in 1999, but tensions escalated when Lawal sought autonomy from Saraki’s influence. This led to violent confrontations between their supporters, plunging the state into turmoil. The assassination of Ahmed Pategi, the PDP chairman, further intensified the crisis, along with a bomb explosion at the National Pilot newspaper office, owned by Bukola Saraki, which injured five people and spread panic across the state.
In Enugu State, Jim Nwobodo played a key role in Chimaroke Nnamani’s rise to power in 1999, yet their relationship collapsed over governance disputes. The Enugu State House of Assembly became a battleground for political factions, resulting in attempted impeachments, legislative paralysis, and physical confrontations.
These recurring crises highlight a fundamental flaw in Nigeria’s democratic process. The influence of political godfathers, who expect unwavering loyalty from their successors, undermines democracy by prioritizing personal interests over governance. These power struggles disrupt governance, divert attention from developmental projects, and create instability that weakens institutions.
To break this cycle, Nigeria must strengthen its political institutions, promote transparency and accountability, and encourage genuine democratic participation. Elected officials should be accountable to the people rather than political benefactors who expect political patronage in return for their support. Electoral reform is crucial to reducing the financial burden of campaigns, thereby limiting the dependence on godfathers. The cost of running for office remains high, forcing many politicians to seek financial backing from powerful sponsors, ultimately leading to compromised governance.
The lack of internal democracy in political parties further fuels this crisis. When party leaders impose candidates instead of allowing transparent primaries, those candidates often become indebted to their benefactors rather than the electorate. This creates a political system where loyalty to a godfather outweighs commitment to good governance. Strengthening internal democracy within political parties and ensuring merit-based selection of candidates is essential for Nigeria’s democratic progress.
The media and civil society also have a critical role to play. By exposing the manipulations of godfathers and holding politicians accountable, the media can help inform citizens and encourage greater democratic participation. Civil society organizations should advocate for transparency, electoral reforms, and stronger institutions to minimize the influence of money and patronage in politics.
The Fubara-Wike conflict serves as a stark reminder that power struggles remain an enduring feature of Nigerian politics. However, the deeper issue lies in the entrenched system of political godfatherism, which undermines democracy and fosters corruption and impunity. Addressing this issue requires a collective effort from the government, civil society, the media, and the international community. Only through a sustained commitment to reform can Nigeria build a more stable, prosperous, and truly democratic future.
The battle between political godfathers and their successors is not just about individual ambitions; it reflects a systemic failure in Nigeria’s political culture. Without urgent reforms, these conflicts will continue to hinder governance, erode public trust in democracy, and limit the country’s ability to achieve meaningful progress.
Nigeria’s democracy must evolve beyond personal power struggles and political patronage. Until the focus shifts to service delivery, institution building, and true democratic values, the nation will remain trapped in a cycle of political instability fueled by the ambitions of a few at the expense of the many. The responsibility to change this trajectory lies with leaders, institutions, and, most importantly, the Nigerian people.
