VP Shettima’s office denies reports of criticism of President Tinubu’s actions on Rivers State crisis

Stanley Ihedigbo

Office of the Vice President has denied reports that Senator Kashim Shettima criticized President Bola Tinubu’s actions in Rivers State during a book launch in Abuja.

According to the office, Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media & Communications (Spokesman of the Vice President), Stanley Nkwocha, Shettima’s remarks were historical references to events during the Jonathan administration and were intended as a discourse on Nigeria’s constitutional evolution.

Certain online news outlets and individuals have distorted the Vice President’s comments in pursuit of a mischievous agenda, twisting his account of how the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan considered removing him from office—then as Governor of Borno State—at the height of the insurgency in the North East region.

The sensational reporting, which strips the Vice President’s remarks of their proper context, ventures into fiction by drawing false equivalence between his personal experience and the state of emergency declared in Rivers State, as well as the subsequent suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara by His Excellency, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

Shettima’s comments were made during the public presentation of the book “OPL 245: The Inside Story of the $1.3 Billion Oil Block” by Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN), held in Abuja

The Vice President’s office stated that Shettima’s remarks were not a criticism of President Tinubu’s actions, which the administration fully supports.

“We wish to state categorically that Vice President Shettima’s comments were made within the context of acknowledging the author’s professional conduct during his tenure as Attorney General of the Federation—a tribute to his public service record. His remarks were historical references to events during the Jonathan administration and were intended as a discourse on Nigeria’s constitutional evolution. They served to highlight how complex federal-state tensions have been managed through legal mechanisms and the country’s progress in that regard,” he stated.

President Tinubu’s decision to suspend Governor Siminalayi Fubara was a constitutional measure to restore order and stability in Rivers State.

The declaration of a state of emergency was necessary due to the grave political crisis in Rivers State, which met the constitutional threshold for extraordinary measures.

The administration supports President Tinubu’s actions in Rivers State and urged media organisations to desist from distorting statements to fabricate nonexistent conflicts.

For the avoidance of doubt, President Tinubu did not remove Governor Fubara from office.

The constitutional measure implemented was a suspension, not an outright removal. This action, along with the declaration of a state of emergency, was taken in response to the grave political crisis in Rivers State at the time.

The situation was unprecedented, with the State House of Assembly complex under demolition and the Governor facing a looming threat of impeachment by aggrieved members of the legislature. No objective observer can deny that this decisive intervention by the President brought stability and calm to Rivers State.

This situation is not comparable to that of the North East under the Jonathan administration, where violent non-state actors were directly challenging the sovereignty of the Nigerian state, demanding unified action by both federal and state authorities to confront terrorism.

In contrast, President Tinubu acted strictly within constitutional limits and in consultation with relevant stakeholders to preserve democratic institutions and restore order in Rivers State.

Nigeria’s laws provide a clear framework for addressing such matters. Section 305(3)(c) of the Constitution authorises extraordinary measures when there is “a breakdown of public order and public safety in the federation or any part thereof to such extent as to require extraordinary measures to restore peace and security.”

The situation in Rivers State met this constitutional threshold, with persistent politically motivated violence, systematic attacks on federal institutions, and near-complete paralysis of governance, conditions intolerable in any democratic society.

According to credible security reports, these acts even escalated into attacks on national assets.

President Tinubu acted with constitutional fidelity. His proclamation invoking Section 305(2) was ratified by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the National Assembly, as required by Section 305(3).

This cross-party consensus in suspending the government of Rivers State, led by Sim Fubara, reflects a shared understanding among our elected representatives that the situation had reached a point of constitutional necessity, requiring immediate federal intervention.

Clearly, without mincing words, the action of President Tinubu in suspending Mr Fubara and others from exercising the functions of office averted the Governor’s outright removal. To conflate suspension with removal is misleading. Therefore, interpreting Senator Shettima’s remarks as commentary on current events is either a wilful misrepresentation or a deliberate neglect of constitutional context.

The Vice President, speaking extemporaneously, focused on the importance of public officials documenting their stewardship and on the enduring principle of accountability in public service. His historical references were made to illustrate the principled stands taken by past public servants, as well as his ties to Mohammed Bello Adoke and former Speaker Aminu Waziri Tambuwal. His remarks were not in any way a criticism of President Tinubu’s actions, which the Vice President and the entire administration fully support and stand by without reservation.

Vice President Shettima stands in loyal concert with President Tinubu in implementing these difficult but necessary actions to safeguard our democracy. We urge media organisations and political actors to desist from the destructive practice of wrenching statements from context to fabricate nonexistent conflicts.