Premium News
FCT minister Nyesom Wike has a favourite political refrain: “agreement is agreement.” He repeats it with certainty, authority, and an unmistakable sense of entitlement. But as the political crisis in Rivers State escalates, that phrase has taken on a deeper and more troubling meaning. Nigerians are now asking the obvious question Wike has avoided answering: what exactly was the agreement, and who were the parties to it?
The bitter fallout between Wike and his successor in Rivers state, Siminalayi Fubara, has gone far beyond personal disagreement. What began as political tension has mutated into an institutional crisis, with the Martin Amawhule-led faction of the Rivers state house of assembly — loyal to Wike — pushing for the impeachment of both the governor and his deputy even after their return to office from six months suspension through emergency rule declaration.
Wike has publicly boasted of his “robust relationship” with these lawmakers. He has also admitted that allowing Fubara to become governor was a mistake he would not repeat. These statements matter because they suggest that the current impeachment move is not about governance failures, but about enforcing an agreement that has allegedly been breached.
If both the governor and his deputy are removed, Amawhule, the speaker of the assembly — a Wike loyalist — constitutionally becomes governor. That possibility has sharpened public concern. When public officeholders justify such high-stakes political manoeuvres by invoking secret agreements, citizens have a right to demand clarity. What was agreed to? Power sharing? Control of state resources? Political loyalty above constitutional authority?
The questions did not end there. Wike recently accused the APC national secretary, Ajibola Basiru, of coming to Rivers State to “collect his share” of the state’s allocation. That allegation opened an even wider debate. If political actors are entitled to “shares” of state resources, who negotiated those shares, and under what agreement?
Then there is the controversy over the 10,000 jobs Wike claims to have secured for Rivers youths. He accuses Fubara of cancelling them. Yet for years, critics had accused Wike himself of never fulfilling that same promise while he was governor. If the jobs were cancelled, Nigerians deserve to know why. Were they procedurally defective? Politically motivated? Or merely rhetorical promises weaponised for political leverage?
What agreements did Fubara agree to? You cannot commit yourself to agreements just because of your desperation to become governor. Those whom you pledged allegiance to fulfilled their part of the bargain and you became governor. When the time comes for you to fulfill your part, you reneged and started singing ‘Dey your dey, make I dey my dey ooo. Nobody worry nobody’. Of course, they will worry you. He who dines with the devil should use a long spoon.
But the Rivers crisis is only one side of the story. The bigger, more uncomfortable question lies in Abuja: what agreement did Wike sign with President Bola Tinubu that has made him arguably the most powerful minister in the cabinet?
Since his appointment as FCT minister, Wike has operated with unusual autonomy and visibility. He holds frequent press briefings, dominates national political discourse, and confronts powerful interests without consequence. While Nigerians have repeatedly called on President Bola Tinubu to rein him in, the President has instead praised him as a “top performer” in his cabinet while turning a blind eye to his excesses. Wike also asked his critics to keep quiet, saying it is not their responsibility to remind the president to sack him.
This has fuelled a widespread belief that Wike’s influence is rooted in political debt. Many analysts argue that Wike’s role in the 2023 elections — particularly his influence in Rivers state and parts of the south-south — was critical to Tinubu’s victory in the 2023 Nigerian presidential election. There is also the belief that Tinubu sees Wike as a strategic asset ahead of 2027.
If that is true, then Nigerians must confront a disturbing implication: is Rivers State paying the price for political agreements tied to past and future elections? Must governance be suspended and peace sacrificed so that agreements between powerful men can be honoured?
With impeachment threats intensifying, calls have grown louder for President Tinubu to intervene once again. But repeated presidential interventions in Rivers have yielded little lasting peace. At what point does presidential intervention become a distraction, especially in a country battling inflation, insecurity, unemployment, and economic hardship? It is clear now that critics who argued that the state of emergency declaration imposed by President Tinubu and the appointment of a sole administrator wouldn’t achieve anything meaningful have been vindicated.
Wii the president impose another emergency declaration to save Fubara or call Wike and his men to order?
Ultimately, this crisis is no longer just about Wike versus Fubara. It is about democratic transparency. In a constitutional democracy, agreements between politicians cannot supersede the will of the people or the stability of institutions. When leaders insist that “agreement is agreement” while refusing to disclose the terms, democracy is diminished.
Nigerians are not asking for favours. They are asking for honesty. If agreements are shaping public power, public resources, and public suffering, then the public deserves to know exactly what was agreed — and at what cost.
Akinsuyi, former group politics editor of the Daily Independent, writes from Abuja.
