By Thomas Danjuma Abu
I have been reading, watching videos, and following statements and commentaries emanating from the political happenings in Rivers State—particularly the ongoing contest between the political blocs aligned with Governor Siminalayi Fubara and Nyesom Wike. Beyond the emotions and partisan noise, I have chosen to reflect on this moment both as a Nigerian and, more importantly, as a Political Scientist.
What is happening in Rivers State is neither strange nor abnormal. It is politics in its rawest form—an intense struggle over who gets what, when, and how, revolving around power and resource control. To political scientists, this is familiar terrain. In fact, moments like this provide rich laboratories for political analysis. Political actors flexing power is how political systems expose their internal logic, leaving behind empirical lessons for future reference.
However, beyond observation, a troubling narrative has emerged in some quarters—suggestions that alleged political agreements reached within elite circles should be used to politically disenfranchise Governor Fubara.
That argument collapses under constitutional scrutiny.
Nigeria operates a democratic system—imperfect, yes—but anchored in clear legal principles. Section 14(2)(a) of the 1999 Constitution is unequivocal: sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government derives its authority. Power does not flow from godfathers, blocs, or alleged agreements; it flows from the electorate.
Furthermore, Section 14(2)(c) mandates that the participation of the people in governance shall be ensured. Governor Fubara emerged through this very process—universal adult suffrage, exercising the constitutional right to vote and be voted for. These rights are reinforced by Section 40, which guarantees political association, and by Section 177, which outlines qualifications for the office of Governor—without any provision allowing alleged agreements to disqualify an otherwise qualified citizen.
Most importantly, Section 1(1) and (3) of the Constitution establishes its supremacy. The Constitution is supreme, and any agreement—alleged or otherwise—that is inconsistent with its provisions is null and void. No political pact, whispered or written, can override the grundnorm.
This position is also internationally grounded. Nigeria subscribes to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 21(1) affirms the right of every person to participate in the government of his country, while Article 21(3) declares that the will of the people—expressed through genuine elections—is the basis of governmental authority. Article 7 further guarantees equality before the law, making selective political exclusion legally indefensible.
To argue that alleged political agreements can disenfranchise an elected governor is to suggest that rights are negotiable. They are not. Asking a citizen to surrender his constitutional mandate through an alleged agreement is akin to asking him to sign away his right to vote—or his right to breathe. Certain rights are inherent; they cannot be bargained away.
Politics thrives on negotiations, settlements, and shifting alliances. But democracy draws a red line: agreements may regulate interests, but they cannot extinguish constitutional rights or annul the sovereign will of the people.
Rivers State is therefore offering Nigeria a moment of political reflection—not for emotional partisanship, but for constitutional clarity. When alleged agreements become instruments of disenfranchisement, democracy gives way to coercion.
History is watching. Political science is recording. And the Constitution—above all—remains supreme.
Post a Comment