The political crisis rocking Rivers State has taken a sharper turn following blunt remarks by the National Secretary of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Dr Ajibola Basiru, directed at the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike.
Unlike other political actors who have responded to the Rivers situation with carefully worded statements and strategic silence, Basiru publicly challenged Wike, asking him to resign his ministerial position and confront what he described as an “obsession” with Rivers politics.
Basiru also clarified that Wike’s open support for President Bola Tinubu does not automatically confer APC membership on the former Rivers governor.
The intervention has drawn attention because Basiru is not known for public confrontations with sitting ministers, particularly those aligned with the presidency.
As APC National Secretary, he occupies a key institutional role within the party, responsible for internal discipline, organisational order, and defining the boundaries of party loyalty.
READ ALSO: Analysis: Rising tensions around Wike expose risks of power without party ownership
Political observers note that when such an official abandons diplomatic caution for open confrontation, it often reflects a deliberate attempt to draw a clear line rather than a spontaneous reaction.
Basiru’s statement, they argue, appears designed to publicly assert party authority and signal that the APC is unwilling to blur institutional boundaries, regardless of political alliances.
In defending his position, Basiru projected confidence rooted in his background as a lawyer, former attorney general of Osun State, ex-senator, and a participant in Nigeria’s pro-democracy struggles. He framed himself as an official guided by rules, legality, and institutional legitimacy, rather than by fear of political intimidation.
Wike, by contrast, is widely seen as a politician forged in grassroots dominance and electoral combat. His political rise in Rivers State — from local government chairman to governor and now a powerful minister — has been driven by strong control of political structures, loyalty networks, and an instinct for enforcing authority.
To many analysts, Wike represents a politics of consequence and command, rather than formal hierarchy.
Political analysts describe the clash as a collision of two distinct understandings of power in Nigerian politics.
Dr Kunle Adeyemi, a political sociologist, explains that “Basiru embodies institutional power — the belief that rules, offices, and party structures ultimately prevail.
“Wike represents raw political power — the belief that influence comes from control of people, resources, and consequences.”
READ ALSO: Impeachment drama in Rivers puts Wike, Tinubu administration under spotlight
According to Adeyemi, the disagreement is not merely personal but symbolic of a wider tension within Nigerian party politics: whether institutions can restrain dominant individuals who command loyalty beyond party lines.
Another analyst, Ms Zainab Sule, notes that Basiru’s political history in Osun State provides important context.
“Basiru has enjoyed national visibility and prominence, but his experience in Osun shows that institutional authority does not always translate into local dominance. This makes his confrontation with Wike both courageous and risky.”
Sule argues that Wike’s strength lies in his refusal to retreat from political battles once engaged, a trait that contrasts sharply with Basiru’s more restrained approach to electoral contests.
“Wike fights to the end. Basiru calculates when to advance and when to step back,” she said.
Analysts also caution that public statements in Nigerian politics gain weight only when backed by tangible consequences.
“If Basiru’s position does not translate into concrete party action or unified pressure, Wike may simply dismiss the remarks as noise,” said political commentator Tunde Balogun. “In that case, the authority of the APC National Secretariat itself risks being undermined.”
However, others see Basiru’s move as an attempt to reassert party discipline at a critical moment. “This is the APC testing whether it can still draw boundaries around power,” Balogun added.
“The outcome will show whether institutions still matter or whether personality politics continues to dominate.”