By Justice Osai Ahiakwo
Between the political mandate of President Bola Tinubu and the entrenched influence of Nyesom Wike lies a pressing question: Where do Rivers loyalists truly stand?
The political terrain in Rivers State is no longer defined solely by local alliances or state-level calculations.
It has evolved into a contest shaped by national power dynamics, strategic positioning, and legislative maneuvering.
In this shifting landscape, loyalty is being tested, recalibrated, and, in some cases, redefined.
The coming into force of the 2026 Electoral Act was widely challenged as Section 60 was crafted with intent to manipulate election results.
This has defeated the true purpose of electronic transition, a milestone intended by the repelled 2022 Electoral Act that seeks to strengthen transparency, accountability, and credibility in Nigeria’s electoral process.
The original concept was to introduce mechanisms designed to reduce manipulation and improve public confidence in elections.
Conversely, electoral laws do not operate in isolation from political actors.
Their effectiveness depends on the integrity of those who interpret and implement them.
Where political interests dominate institutional safeguards, even well-crafted legislation can be repurposed to serve narrower objectives.
The release of the 2027 general election timetable by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) signaled the formal commencement of political calculations toward the next electoral cycle.
Electoral timetables are not mere administrative notices; they shape party primaries, coalition-building, and campaign strategies.
Yet, the proximity between the release of the timetable and subsequent amendments to the electoral framework raises legitimate concerns.
When the legal architecture governing elections is altered shortly after timelines are published, it inevitably invites scrutiny regarding motive and impact.
Amendments to electoral laws are not inherently problematic.
As democracies evolve, legal frameworks must sometimes be adjusted to address gaps or emerging realities.
However, drastic or hurried amendments risk destabilizing the status quo and generating perceptions of manipulation.
Stability in electoral rules is essential to maintaining trust.
When stakeholders suspect that rules are being recalibrated to favor certain interests ahead of 2027, confidence in the neutrality of the process weakens.
Within this broader national context, Rivers State occupies a sensitive position.
Historically marked by intense political rivalry and factional alignments, the state has long grappled with the influence of godfatherism and strongman politics.
What appears to be changing, evidently, is not the disappearance of these forces relocated.
The arena of contests is shifting from the state platform to the national stage.
Political control is no longer exercised solely through local patronage networks; it is increasingly tied to alignment with federal authority, as was the introduction of local government autonomy, creating direct links to the federal government.
This centralization of political power reshapes loyalty structures.
Rivers loyalists, particularly those who align with either Tinubu’s national mandate or Wike’s entrenched political influence, must now navigate a more complex terrain.
Allegiance is no longer simply about state-level solidarity.
It is intertwined with federal appointments, party machinery, and national calculations.
In this environment, loyalty risks become transactional rather than ideological.
The tension between federal influence and state autonomy is not new in Nigerian politics.
Political actors consolidate influence at the national level by altering the balance within federating units.
Decisions affecting Rivers and other APC States may increasingly be influenced by considerations external to the state’s immediate interests. For loyalists on the ground, this creates uncertainty:
Are they defending local mandates, or are they instruments in a broader national chess game?
Godfatherism and political gangsterism, though often criticized, have traditionally operated within defined state boundaries routinely controlled by some former and sitting governors.
Their shift toward national coordination suggests a more sophisticated consolidation of power.
Political survival now depends not only on local dominance but also on strategic proximity to central authority.
This transformation does not eliminate strongman politics who now is in charge of the national government. It indeed has elevated it.
For Rivers citizens and political stakeholders, the critical issue is accountability.
When political influence becomes centralized, it can weaken grassroots participation and diminish local voices.
Loyalists may find themselves defending positions that reflect national strategies rather than community priorities.
The danger lies in the erosion of democratic responsiveness to grassroots, where political allegiance overshadows public interest.
In the coming 2027 general elections, the interplay between legal reforms, national mandates, and state-level dynamics will define the political direction of Rivers State.
The question remains whether electoral processes will strengthen democratic competition or entrench centralized control.
Therefore, Rivers loyalists must confront a fundamental choice: align uncritically with power wherever it resides or insist that political mandates, whether national or state, remain accountable to the people.
The shifting ground of Nigerian politics reflects a broader struggle between institutional integrity and strategic power consolidation.
Where Rivers loyalists stand will depend on whether they prioritize loyalty to individuals or commitment to democratic principles, a decision that will determine not only political outcomes in 2027 but also the credibility of governance in Rivers State and by extension the Nigeria state.
