Shettimo: Tinubu did not remove Fubara as a governor of the rivers, he was only suspended

*No connection between the launch observations of the book of Shettimo and the media

The vice -president office noted with severe concern the serious false representation of the observations made by his excellence, Senator Kashim Shettimo, vice -president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, during the public presentation of the book, “Opl 245: the inner history of the 1.3 billion oil block”, by Mohammed Bellake (San), Thursday, Thursday, on Thursday, due to Yar’adua ” July 2025.
Some stores irresponsibly distorted the vice -president of the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration, the idea of removing him from the office, then as governor of the state of Borno, in the most intense and critical phase of insurrection in the northern -east of the country of the country.
The sensational complaint has disappointingly tried to erect a highly false discussion on the state of emergency declared in the state of spinners and the subsequent suspension of the governor Siminalayi Fubara by his excellence, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Gcfr, president and commander in the head of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeri.
We want to categorically declare that the comments of the Vice President Shettimo were made in the specific context of recognizing the author’s professional conduct during his mandate as a general prosecutor of the Federation. His observations were historical references to the events that occurred during the Jonathan administration and constituted nothing more than an intellectual speech on the constitutional evolution of Nigeria.
This rare moment of retrospect was purely illustrative, intended to demonstrate how our constitutional democracy has matured in the ability to resolve the complex tensions of the federal state through established legal mechanisms.
To avoid doubt, President Tinubu did not remove the governor Fubara from the position. The constitutional action undertaken was suspension and not absolute removal. It was part of the measures implemented, including the state of emergency declared, in response to the serious circumstances surrounding politics in the state of the rivers at the time. It is more so considering the unprecedented situation in which the state complex of the assembly chamber was under demolition and the governor was facing a looming threat of impeachment (forfeiture of the office) by the fought members of the state legislator.
This cannot be compared with the situation in the North East Region under the Jonathan Administration, in which the non -state violent actors were challenging the sovereignty of the Nigerian state and required collective actions of the central and subnational government to eliminate terrorists. The actions of President Tinubu were taken in the constitutional framework and in consultation with the interested parties to preserve democratic institutions and maintain peace in the state of the rivers.
Our laws provide an explicit picture to understand these issues with the shade they deserve.

Section 305 (1) (c) explicitly authorizes the measures to be taken when there is “a distribution of public order and public security in the Federation or in any part of it to this measure to require extraordinary measures to restore peace and security”.
The strong descent into the chaos in the state of spars had reached this constitutional threshold, with daily accidents of politically motivated violence, systematic attacks on federal institutions and complete paralysis of the government, creating conditions that no democratic society could reasonably tolerate. Worse still, he degenerated into attacks on national activities, according to credible security relationships.
President Tinubu followed the constitutional process with honest precision. The president’s announcement has correctly invoked section 305 (2), which was subsequently ratified by a vast bipartisan majority in the National Assembly, as in charge of section 305 (3).
This broad consensus to start transversal demonstrates the universal recognition between our elected representatives that the state of rivers had achieved a point of constitutional needs that required immediate federal intervention.
Therefore, to interpret the observations of Senator Shettimo as a comment on current affairs they represent incorrect interpretations or ignorance of the constitutional discourse. The vice -president’s speech focused on the importance of public officials who document their management and the eternal nature of responsibility in the public service. His historical references were made to illustrate the positions of principle taken by public employees in the past, not a criticism of government policies.
Therefore, the cynical attempt to distort the academic comment to appear as criticisms imagined is not only deplorable, but constitutes a reckless danger of our national cohesion. We point out that this administration remains insignificant in its commitment to constitutional governance and the rule of law.
Vice -president Shettimo is shoulder to the shoulder with President Tinubu in currently difficult but indispensable actions to safeguard our democracy. We impose media organizations and political actors to abandon the destructive practice of the excruciating statements from their adequate context to manufacture non -existent conflicts.

*Stanley Nkwocha
Special Senior Assistant of the President for the Media and Communications
(Office of the vice president)