I write with profound respect for my senior brother, Dr. Clem Aguiyi, whose intellectual honesty and patriotic concern for Nigeria’s democratic evolution I do not doubt. However, respect for scholarship must never preclude disagreement where facts, law, and political history compel a different conclusion. I therefore state, without equivocation, that the portrayal of Barrister Nyesom Ezenwo Wike’s political mentorship as destructive is neither supported by constitutional logic, nor by jurisprudential authority, nor by the peculiar political history of Rivers State.
On the contrary, when examined through a forensic lens, Wike’s mentorship represents one of the most structured, constitutionally compatible, and politically productive models of leadership transition in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic.
Political mentorship, as earlier argued, is an unavoidable feature of democratic politics. The 1999 Constitution does not operate in a sociological vacuum; it presupposes political parties, internal discipline, continuity of ideology, and fidelity to collective platforms. Indeed, Section 221 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) expressly prohibits independent candidacy, thereby affirming that political power in Nigeria is mediated through party structures, not isolated personal mandates.
This constitutional reality was decisively affirmed by the Supreme Court in Amaechi v. INEC (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1065) 42, where the Court held that it is the political party, not the individual candidate, that wins an election. That decision alone fatally undermines the narrative that a protégé, upon assuming office, owes no political duty to the structure that produced him.
Mentorship, therefore, is not an act of feudal domination; it is the operational spine of party democracy.
Within this framework, Barrister Nyesom Wike’s role in Rivers State politics must be properly situated. Rivers is not an accidental polity. It has a long history of strong political leadership—from the stabilising era of Dr. Peter Odili, through the turbulent Amaechi years, to the consolidation witnessed under Wike himself. Each transition was anchored on political structures, not spontaneous individualism.
Wike did not dismantle Odili’s structure when he rose. He did not declare political independence by destroying the very house that sheltered him. Instead, he strengthened it, expanded it, and defended it—often at great personal and political cost. That is mentorship as continuity, not coercion.
The emergence of Governor Siminalayi Fubara followed this same historical logic. He was not a political orphan. He was nominated, defended, funded, and electorally delivered by a political family that had governed Rivers State with coherence since 2015. To suggest that such a benefactor must instantly vanish from relevance upon handover is not democratic idealism; it is constitutional naivety.
The crisis that followed was not caused by mentorship, but by impatience masquerading as independence.
Governor Fubara’s conduct—particularly the rapid distancing from the political structure that produced him and the overtures toward the APC—cannot, in good faith, be framed as ideological realignment. Rivers politics has never been driven by ideology; it has always been driven by structure, loyalty, and negotiated consensus. What occurred was better described as a self-coup: an attempt to uproot an existing political order and replace it with an alien godfather whose only qualification was convenience.
In political anthropology, such behaviour is known as prodigal politics—the rejection of origin in pursuit of immediate security. It is instructive that those now presented as alternative patrons neither invested in Fubara’s political baptism nor bore the risks of his emergence. One does not repudiate a political family to embrace strangers who were absent at the altar of one’s electoral consecration.
From a jurisprudential standpoint, loyalty to party structure is not optional. In PDP v. Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 85, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the supremacy of party processes and internal discipline. A governor who treats the party and its leadership as expendable invites instability, not reform.
Wike’s insistence on structural fidelity, therefore, was not tyranny; it was constitutional conservatism—an effort to preserve the coherence of governance in a state historically vulnerable to political fragmentation.
Critics often mischaracterize Wike’s firmness as authoritarianism. Yet firmness is not antithetical to democracy. Indeed, Section 5 of the Constitution, which vests executive powers in elected governors, presupposes order, coordination, and continuity. A governor who governs against the grain of his political foundation risks paralysis. Rivers State has seen this movie before, and the ending has never been pleasant.
Mentorship does not terminate at inauguration. It extends into transition, consolidation, and early governance—the most delicate phase of any administration. Wike’s continued engagement was thus a stabilizing force, not an act of shadow governance. That he did not collapse the system despite provocation is evidence of restraint, not domination.
Furthermore, the narrative that political maturity requires instant rebellion is historically false. Mandela did not dismantle the ANC elders. Obama did not repudiate the Democratic establishment. Even in Nigeria, Awolowo’s protégés did not burn the Action Group to prove independence. Political adulthood matures through balance, not rupture.
Wike’s school of mentorship is constructive because it produces governance-ready leaders, not populist adventurers. It emphasizes discipline, memory, and institutional survival. If loyalty is its sin, then it is a sin shared by every enduring political civilization.
In conclusion, the Rivers crisis is not evidence of destructive mentorship, but of political ingratitude elevated to doctrine. Governor Fubara still has the opportunity to reconcile with his political family, restore institutional harmony, and govern inclusively. But history will not be kind to narratives that confuse rebellion with reform.
Barrister Nyesom Wike’s mentorship stands on firm constitutional footing, sound jurisprudential logic, and a proven Rivers political tradition. Nigeria does not suffer from mentors who stay involved; it suffers from protégés who forget too quickly.
Mentorship that builds structures is not oppression. It is governance with memory.
CONSTRUCTIVE MENTORSHIP, CONSTITUTIONAL LOYALTY, AND THE RIVERS QUESTION: A FORENSIC DEFENCE OF THE WIKE SCHOOL By Barrister Joseph Obinna Aguiyi
Leave a Reply