APC Confirms Engagement of Wike as Power Broker in Rivers Political Crisis

The All Progressives Congress (APC) has openly acknowledged the central role of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, in resolving the prolonged political crisis rocking Rivers State, reinforcing perceptions that the former governor remains the most influential political force in the oil-rich state.

The confirmation came on Thursday when the APC National Secretary, Senator Ajibola Basiru, revealed during an interview on TVC News that Wike is actively being engaged by key stakeholders to help bring an end to the crisis. Basiru described Wike as a “critical stakeholder” in the current administration, despite his continued membership of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

According to Basiru, Rivers State occupies a strategic position in President Bola Tinubu’s political calculations, making the resolution of its internal conflicts a matter of national importance.

“Wike is an avowed supporter of President Bola Tinubu, even though he is not a member of the APC,” Basiru said. “As someone who is interested in the success of President Tinubu, Rivers State is critical for that success. He is being engaged to resolve the political crisis in Rivers State.”

The admission has reignited national debate over Wike’s unusual political positioning — a PDP heavyweight serving in an APC-led federal government — and the extent of his influence over Rivers State politics long after leaving office as governor.

At the centre of the crisis is the bitter power struggle between Wike and his estranged political protégé, Governor Siminalayi Fubara. The conflict, which began shortly after Fubara assumed office, has paralysed governance in the state, triggered repeated confrontations with the State House of Assembly, and deepened factional divisions across Rivers’ political landscape.

What initially appeared to be a typical post-transition disagreement has evolved into a full-blown battle for control of the state’s political structure, with Wike retaining the loyalty of a significant bloc of lawmakers, party operatives, and grassroots power brokers. Governor Fubara, on the other hand, has struggled to consolidate authority, despite holding executive office.

Basiru’s remarks appear to validate what many political observers have long argued: that any attempt to stabilise Rivers State without Wike’s involvement is unlikely to succeed. By publicly confirming that Wike is being consulted, the APC has effectively acknowledged his status as the ultimate gatekeeper of Rivers politics.

Supporters of the move argue that engaging Wike is a pragmatic decision rooted in political realism rather than sentiment. They contend that Wike’s political machinery delivered Rivers State for President Tinubu in the 2023 presidential election and that sidelining him would risk alienating a powerful ally ahead of future electoral contests.

Critics, however, see the development as a troubling indictment of Nigeria’s democratic culture. They question why an unelected former governor, now serving as a federal minister, should wield more influence than a sitting governor who was duly elected by the people of Rivers State.

To them, the situation underscores the dominance of godfatherism in Nigerian politics, where political capital and control of structures often outweigh constitutional authority and popular mandate.

The engagement of Wike has also fuelled speculation about Governor Fubara’s political future. Many analysts believe the governor’s chances of securing a second term have been severely weakened by his failure to neutralise Wike’s influence or win the loyalty of a majority of the State House of Assembly.

Some commentators argue that Fubara underestimated the depth of Wike’s political network and entered the confrontation without the strategic experience required to survive such a high-stakes power struggle. Others insist that the governor’s biggest mistake was attempting to assert independence without first consolidating institutional and legislative backing.

Within the APC, opinions remain divided. While party leaders publicly frame Wike’s engagement as an act of inclusive leadership and conflict resolution, internal critics warn that the party risks legitimising political blackmail by rewarding defiance and brinkmanship.

Meanwhile, opposition voices accuse President Tinubu of prioritising electoral calculations over democratic norms, arguing that the federal government’s posture suggests an implicit endorsement of Wike’s tactics in Rivers State.

For ordinary residents of Rivers, the political chess game has exacted a heavy toll. Governance has slowed, public confidence has eroded, and critical policy discussions have been overshadowed by relentless power struggles. Many citizens express frustration that elite political rivalries continue to dominate public life while economic hardship deepens nationwide.

As efforts to resolve the crisis intensify behind closed doors, the fundamental question remains whether peace in Rivers will come through genuine reconciliation or enforced political settlement. What is clear, however, is that Wike’s relevance has not diminished with his exit from the Government House.

Instead, his ability to command attention from both the ruling APC and the presidency underscores a reality that continues to define Nigerian politics: power does not always reside in office, but in influence, structure, and the capacity to disrupt or deliver.

In Rivers State, that power — for now — still bears the unmistakable imprint of Nyesom Wike.