“Wike Controls Rivers’ Political Structure” – Olayinka’s Remarks on Fubara Spark Outrage and Renew Debate on Godfatherism

Fresh controversy has erupted in Rivers State following comments by Lere Olayinka, media aide to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, who openly declared that his principal controls the political structure of the state and suggested that Governor Siminalayi Fubara should humble himself before the former governor.

Olayinka made the remarks on Wednesday during an appearance on Morning Brief, a current affairs programme aired on Channels Television. Speaking bluntly, he described Governor Fubara as a weak politician who lacks control over the political machinery of Rivers State, particularly the state House of Assembly and local government structures.

According to Olayinka, Wike’s continued influence over the majority of lawmakers in the Rivers State House of Assembly is evidence of his dominance, despite no longer being the sitting governor. He argued that any governor unable to control his legislature has failed politically and must accept his inferiority within the power hierarchy.

“If I am a minister and you are a governor, and I can control your House of Assembly, then something is wrong with you,” Olayinka said. “If I am in Abuja controlling 27 members of your assembly while you have only three, then it means I control the entire structure. You should admit you are weak. You should come and prostrate.”

He further insisted that if Wike truly controls the political structure in Rivers State, then Governor Fubara has no choice but to seek reconciliation and submit to his predecessor’s authority. Olayinka framed the ongoing crisis as a matter of political navigation rather than intimidation, dismissing public outrage as unnecessary emotionalism.

In addressing the impeachment moves against Governor Fubara and his deputy, Ngozi Odu, Olayinka denied claims that Wike was orchestrating the process. He maintained that if Fubara truly wanted to stop the impeachment, he “knows what to do,” implying that political compromise—not public sympathy—was the solution.

These comments came against the backdrop of escalating political tension in Rivers State. Earlier this month, the Rivers State House of Assembly initiated impeachment proceedings against the governor and his deputy over allegations of gross misconduct. However, on January 16, a High Court in Port Harcourt issued an interim order restraining the Chief Judge of Rivers State from receiving or acting on any impeachment notice. The House of Assembly has since filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal.

The political crisis dates back to the breakdown of relations between Wike and Fubara, who were once close allies. Wike had publicly supported Fubara’s emergence as governor but later accused him of breaching a peace agreement allegedly brokered before President Bola Tinubu intervened to lift an earlier state of emergency threat in Rivers.

Olayinka’s remarks, however, triggered a fierce backlash from Nigerians, especially Rivers residents, who viewed his statements as arrogant, provocative, and symptomatic of Nigeria’s long-standing godfatherism problem. Many critics argued that while political influence within a party structure is possible, no individual can legitimately claim to control an entire state.

Several commentators accused Olayinka of reducing Rivers State—a complex, multi-party political environment—into personal property owned by one man. Others questioned the constitutional basis for his claims, noting that political power in a democracy flows from the electorate, not from informal “agreements” or patronage networks.

Some observers also pointed out that Wike’s perceived strength is closely tied to his current position within the federal government. They argued that without federal backing, his influence over Rivers politics would significantly diminish, suggesting that his power is conditional rather than absolute.

Supporters of Governor Fubara, on the other hand, argued that restraint should not be mistaken for weakness. They noted that Fubara has largely avoided public confrontations, choosing instead to rely on legal processes and institutional mechanisms. To them, this approach reflects maturity rather than submission.

The episode has once again reignited a national conversation about godfatherism in Nigerian politics—where unelected power brokers exert control over elected officials long after leaving office. Critics warn that such practices undermine democracy, reduce governance to personal loyalty, and erode public trust in political institutions.

As Rivers State edges closer to 2027, many analysts believe the unfolding drama will ultimately be settled not by media statements or political bravado, but by court rulings, party realignments, and, most importantly, the will of the electorate. Whether Wike’s influence remains decisive or Fubara consolidates power independently, the controversy has laid bare the fragility of Nigeria’s political structures and the enduring struggle between godfathers and those they anoint.