THE DEFEAT OF FUBARA AND THE GODFATHER SYNDROME IN NIGERIA
The resolution of the Rivers State crisis two days ago, sparked by the rift between former Governor Wike and Governor Fubara, dominated both social and mainstream media in Nigeria. Notably, Asiwaju’s intervention was perceived as one sided, with a clear bias towards Wike. This support, leveraging the full weight of the presidency to undermine Fubara, is consistent with the expected behavior of powerful elites protecting their own interests.
The dynamics at play here reflect the entrenched “Godfather syndrome” in Nigerian politics, where influential figures like Asiwaju in Lagos, Wike in Rivers and Oshiomole in Edo wield significant political power. Asiwaju’s backing of Wike, including measures like declaring a state of emergency which in my opinion is illegitimate can be seen as an effort to preserve this system of patronage and influence.
It is clear that Asiwaju does not want to commit “godfather suicide” in Nigeria, where a powerful patron’s influence is challenged or undermined. If Fubara had emerged victorious over Wike, it would have represented a significant challenge to the established order of godfathers in Nigerian politics, with Asiwaju being a central figure. A victory for Fubara would have set a precedent that could potentially destabilise the godfather system, where powerful patrons like Asiwaju hold sway over political outcomes.
Therefore, Fubara’s defeat can be understood as a strategic move to maintain the status quo and protect the interests of the godfathers within the political elite. By supporting Wike, Asiwaju is essentially safeguarding the godfather system, ensuring that the influence and power dynamics that have long characterised Nigerian politics remain intact. This situation underscores the complexities and power dynamics that often shape political outcomes in Nigeria, where the interests of powerful elites take precedence over other considerations.
In this context, the notion of “godfather suicide” takes on a particular significance. It suggests that Asiwaju and other powerful patrons are keenly aware of the need to protect their own interests and maintain their grip on power, even if it means undermining others who might challenge their authority. This dynamic, obviously has significant implications for Nigerian politics, as it highlights the enduring influence of patronage and power broking in shaping political outcomes.
Frederick Braimah. Ph.D.
28 June, 2025.