A Comparative Reflection on Lagos and Rivers State Politics
By Mazi Godson Azu, MA, BA (Hons), FOSHA, AMILM, MID, MIoD, MIoG
Introduction
Nigeria’s democratic journey since the return to constitutional rule in 1999 has been characterised by an enduring contest between democratic institutions and informal centres of political power. While the Constitution establishes the supremacy of the rule of law and the sovereignty of the electorate, political reality has often been shaped by another powerful force—the phenomenon of political godfatherism.
Across the federation, the influence of political godfathers has become one of the defining features of electoral politics, leadership succession, governance and party organisation. In many cases, elected officials owe their emergence not only to popular support but also to the endorsement, resources, political structures and strategic calculations of influential political patrons.
This enduring reality raises fundamental questions about Nigeria’s democratic maturity. Can democracy truly flourish where political loyalty outweighs constitutional responsibility? Can institutions become stronger than individuals? Can leadership succession become genuinely merit-based in a political culture where personal influence frequently overshadows institutional processes?
These questions remain central to Nigeria’s democratic evolution.
The history of Nigerian politics demonstrates that political influence has rarely been confined to holders of public office. Some of the country’s most influential political actors exercised enormous authority without occupying elected positions, while others successfully transformed their electoral mandates into enduring political structures that continued to shape governance long after leaving office.
Who is a Political Godfather?
A political godfather is an influential individual who possesses substantial political capital, organisational capacity, financial resources and strategic networks capable of determining political outcomes. Such individuals often influence candidate selection, electoral victories, appointments and policy directions without necessarily occupying executive office themselves.
Political godfathers derive their authority from accumulated political experience, extensive patronage networks, personal loyalty, financial influence and long-standing relationships within political parties and government institutions.
In mature democracies, political mentors help nurture emerging leaders through guidance, institutional experience and ideological development. In contrast, the African understanding of political godfatherism—particularly within Nigeria—has frequently extended beyond mentorship into the realm of political control, patronage and influence over governmental decision-making.
The distinction between mentorship and domination therefore becomes critical. While mentorship strengthens democracy, excessive political control can weaken democratic institutions and diminish accountability.
The Evolution of Political Godfatherism in Nigeria
The Fourth Republic inherited a political culture in which influence often transcended constitutional office. During the transition from military rule to democratic governance between 1998 and 1999, one of the most influential personalities widely perceived as possessing extraordinary political influence was former military president Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida. Although he held no elected office during that period, many aspiring politicians across the country sought his goodwill, endorsement and political support.
Similarly, the legendary Ibadan political leader Adegoke Adelabu remains one of Nigeria’s earliest historical examples of political influence extending beyond formal governmental authority. His political organisation shaped the political direction of Western Nigeria and demonstrated how individual influence could significantly affect electoral outcomes.
The democratic era also witnessed the rise of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, whose tenure and post-presidential engagements illustrated how former heads of government can continue to exercise considerable influence over political succession, party structures and national politics. While supporters regarded such influence as a source of political stability and continuity, critics argued that it occasionally blurred the boundaries between democratic succession and political dominance.
Yet, perhaps no contemporary political figure has demonstrated the institutionalisation of political succession more consistently than President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
Beginning as Governor of Lagos State in 1999, Tinubu gradually transformed his political organisation into one of the most enduring and sophisticated political structures in Nigeria. Through strategic coalition building, disciplined party management, grassroots mobilisation and long-term succession planning, Lagos State has produced multiple governors under a broadly connected political tradition while maintaining remarkable electoral continuity.
Whether admired or criticised, the Lagos political model has become one of the most studied examples of political organisation in contemporary Nigeria. Supporters argue that it has produced policy continuity, administrative stability and consistent developmental planning. Critics, however, contend that excessive concentration of political influence around a dominant political structure raises legitimate concerns regarding internal party democracy, political competition and institutional independence.
Regardless of one’s perspective, Lagos has become an important case study in understanding how political influence can evolve into an enduring political institution.
The Rivers State Dimension: The Emergence of a New Political Power Centre
In recent years, Rivers State has emerged as another important laboratory for examining political succession, elite competition and the evolving nature of political godfatherism in Nigeria.
His Excellency Nyesom Wike has undoubtedly become one of the most influential political figures to emerge from the Niger Delta in the Fourth Republic. Through his tenure as Governor of Rivers State and his subsequent appointment as Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, he has continued to exercise considerable influence within both state and national politics.
Supporters view Wike as a decisive political strategist, master organiser and administrator who has built an extensive political network capable of producing electoral victories, maintaining party structures and negotiating political alliances across party lines. His influence extends beyond Rivers State into the wider national political landscape, making him one of Nigeria’s most visible contemporary political actors.
Critics, on the other hand, interpret recent political developments in Rivers State as illustrating the tensions that may arise when political succession, executive authority and competing centres of influence collide. The disagreements between political allies who once campaigned together have reignited national conversations regarding the proper limits of political influence after leaving executive office.
From an analytical standpoint, Rivers State increasingly invites comparison with Lagos State—not because the two political environments are identical, but because both demonstrate how powerful political leaders can develop enduring political structures that continue to shape governance beyond their tenure in office.
Whether Rivers ultimately evolves into a political model comparable to Lagos will depend not merely on the influence of individuals but on the strength of democratic institutions, constitutional safeguards and the willingness of political actors to subordinate personal ambition to the broader public interest.
The true test of political greatness is not simply the ability to produce successors, but the capacity to build institutions that remain resilient regardless of who occupies public office.
