- The Presidency denies any rift between Tinubu and Shettima.
- Fubara’s suspension was a constitutional measure, not a removal.
- The action was taken to prevent a breakdown of law and order in Rivers State.
- Shettima’s comments at a book launch were misinterpreted.
- The Presidency accuses online outlets of twisting the VP’s words for a ‘mischievous agenda’.
No Fight Here! Presidency Denies Tinubu-Shettima Clash
Forget the gossip! The Presidency has come out swinging against reports of a power struggle between President Bola Tinubu and his Vice President, Kashim Shettima. The subject of this alleged friction? The six-month suspension of Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, back in March.
Why Fubara Was Suspended: The Official Explanation
According to the Presidency, the decision to suspend Governor Fubara wasn’t taken lightly. They insist it was a necessary step to prevent chaos and maintain order in the oil-rich Rivers State. They claim all constitutional procedures were followed before the suspension was put in place.
Shettima’s Speech: Lost in Translation?
The controversy seems to stem from comments made by Vice President Shettima at the launch of a book by former Attorney-General Mohammed Bello Adoke. The Presidency is accusing certain online media outlets of deliberately misinterpreting Shettima’s words to create a false narrative.
The Backstory: Jonathan, Shettima, and the Boko Haram Crisis
To understand the context, it’s important to remember that Shettima served as the Governor of Borno State during Goodluck Jonathan’s presidency. At the height of the Boko Haram insurgency, there were discussions about removing Shettima from office. The Presidency argues that Shettima’s comments were a historical reference to this period, not a criticism of Tinubu’s actions regarding Fubara.
Key Points From The Presidency’s Statement:
- No Removal, Just Suspension: The Presidency emphasizes that Fubara was suspended, not removed from office.
- Constitutional Grounds: The suspension was based on the 1999 Constitution, following a grave political crisis in Rivers State.
- State of Emergency: The President declared a state of emergency due to the volatile situation, including the demolition of the State House of Assembly complex and threats to impeach the Governor.
- Tinubu’s Intervention: The Presidency claims Tinubu’s decisive action brought stability to Rivers State.
Was Rivers State Really That Bad?
The Presidency paints a picture of a state on the brink of collapse. They cite persistent politically motivated violence, attacks on federal institutions, and a near-complete paralysis of governance. They even claim that these acts escalated into attacks on national assets, citing credible security reports. It’s important to remember that these are the claims of the Presidency and may be viewed differently by people closer to the events in Rivers State.
Constitutional Justification: Section 305
The Presidency refers to Section 305(3)(c) of the Constitution, which allows for extraordinary measures when there’s a breakdown of public order and safety. They argue that the situation in Rivers State met this threshold, justifying federal intervention.
National Assembly Backed Tinubu’s Decision
According to the Presidency, President Tinubu’s proclamation invoking Section 305(2) was ratified by a large majority in the National Assembly. This cross-party support, they say, shows a shared understanding that the situation in Rivers State required immediate federal intervention.
Bottom Line: No Power Struggle, Just Politics
The Presidency is adamant: there’s no feud between Tinubu and Shettima. They are dismissing the reports as a deliberate misrepresentation of facts, fueled by a ‘mischievous agenda’. They are also saying that the online news outlets are twisting the story to suit their purposes and generate clicks. However, questions remain about the events in Rivers State and whether the federal government’s actions were truly justified.
About The Author
