If you remove Wike now, he has the capacity to damage the president’s political ambition-Akinfenwa

Nigeria’s volatile and ever-shifting political terrain has once again thrust Rivers State into the national spotlight, as the deepening rift between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his once-dominant political benefactor, Nyesom Wike, continues to generate intense debate and strategic calculations at the highest levels of government

In a penetrating analysis broadcast on ARISE News on Wednesday, February 4, 2026, political scientist Akinwunmi Akinfenwa dissected the high-risk implications of the ongoing power struggle, delivering a sobering assessment of the delicate calculations now confronting the presidency itself. He warned bluntly that any attempt to abruptly marginalise or remove Wike from the political equation would carry grave consequences: “If you remove Wike now, he has the capacity to damage the president’s political ambition.”

Akinfenwa situated the current crisis within the broader context of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s repeated interventions in Rivers affairs—efforts aimed at preventing a full-blown constitutional breakdown triggered by repeated impeachment threats against Fubara, a dysfunctional state assembly, and months of paralysing instability.

While the president’s decision to suspend impeachment proceedings provided a temporary reprieve, Akinfenwa argued that it reflected an unspoken recognition of Wike’s enduring indispensability. Despite no longer holding the governorship, Wike remains a formidable force whose influence extends far beyond party labels or formal titles.

The political scientist emphasised a fundamental truth of Nigerian politics: formal party affiliation and public office are often secondary to the real levers of power—control over grassroots mobilisation networks, loyalty structures, patronage systems, and the proven ability to shape electoral outcomes at the ward, local government, and state levels.

Akinfenwa described Fubara’s reported realignment with the APC—reportedly guided by strategic counsel from figures such as Imo State Governor Hope Uzodimma—as a calculated attempt to create breathing room and reduce Wike’s suffocating pressure. “He made a grand move, a masterstroke of a move, led by the governor of Imo State, who guided him to quickly declare for APC so that at least Wike would be off his back,” Akinfenwa recounted.

Yet he stressed that this manoeuvre ultimately failed to address the underlying reality: party-switching alone cannot dismantle or neutralise a political machine meticulously constructed over many years through deep local penetration, financial control, and personal loyalty networks.

He pointed out that Wike’s dominance in Rivers State transcends partisan boundaries. The APC itself, he noted, lacks a strong, independent grassroots foundation in the state and remains largely an elite-driven formation with limited organic reach at the community level. In this environment, Fubara’s realignment offered no credible counterweight to Wike’s entrenched authority.

Akinfenwa concluded that the governor seriously misjudged the depth and resilience of Wike’s political infrastructure. Without first building independent power bases, forging authentic local alliances, and cultivating a genuine grassroots following of his own, such tactical shifts are unlikely to deliver lasting autonomy or meaningful relief. Instead, they risk leaving the governor even more exposed and dependent in a political landscape where true power is measured not by formal titles or party banners, but by the ability to command loyalty and deliver results on the ground.

The Rivers crisis, as Akinfenwa framed it, is not merely a local feud but a vivid illustration of a broader Nigerian political truth: in the arena of power, the real masters are those who control the hearts, minds, and votes of the grassroots electorate—regardless of who occupies the governor’s lodge or flies the party flag.