A Vice President’s Subtle Revolt: How Shettima’s Bombshell Threatens Tinubu’s Grip on Power [OPINION]

 

A slow but seismic shift is underway within Nigeria’s corridors of power. What seemed like a routine book launch has set off political tremors that now threaten the fragile unity within the presidency. Vice President Kashim Shettima, with the poise of a seasoned tactician and the precision of a man burdened with restrained truth, has finally spoken, and the reverberations are deafening. Without naming names, he has managed to throw a spotlight on what critics have long whispered about: President Bola Tinubu’s perceived disdain for the rule of law and the rising concern over autocratic tendencies within the current administration.

Not many anticipated a moment of reckoning to emerge from a seemingly benign narrative. But that is exactly what happened. Shettima, while reflecting on events from his time as Borno State governor, used an anecdote involving former President Goodluck Jonathan to unleash a carefully veiled rebuke of Tinubu’s handling of the Rivers State crisis. The attack was indirect, almost poetic, yet unmistakable. The message was clear for those with ears attuned to political signals: the actions taken against Governor Siminalayi Fubara were unconstitutional and reminiscent of the kind of executive lawlessness Nigeria hoped to have left behind.

The heart of the matter lies in the controversial suspension of Governor Fubara, widely believed to have been orchestrated from Aso Rock. The silence that followed from national institutions painted a bleak picture. The National Assembly, traditionally expected to offer checks and balances, watched passively. The judiciary appeared indifferent. Even voices like Wole Soyinka, often outspoken on national issues, remained quiet. This lack of resistance allowed the executive to bulldoze its way through constitutional boundaries.

However, Shettima’s recent statements did what institutions failed to do. They introduced accountability, not through confrontation but by comparison. He drew attention to Jonathan’s restraint during a period when he himself, as governor, was accused of political entanglement with Boko Haram insurgents. Despite pressure and suspicion, Jonathan sought legal advice, consulted with the National Assembly, and ultimately respected constitutional limitations. The contrast could not be more stark.

Many see Shettima’s remarks as more than a history lesson. They are interpreted as a daring move within a power structure known for being intolerant of internal dissent. Shettima’s decision to highlight the legal prudence of a former president while casting shadows on his current principal’s decisions is seen as an act of political courage, or perhaps calculated defiance. Either way, the gloves appear to be off.

The implications stretch far beyond Rivers State. Tinubu’s rise to power was built on an image of constitutional activism. He was Lagos State’s fiercest defender against federal interference during the Obasanjo years. He employed legal luminaries like Yemi Osinbajo to push back against presidential overreach. Back then, he was the underdog, the advocate for federalism, the crusader for state autonomy. Today, that same man is accused of turning the presidency into a tool for political vendettas, using executive privilege to settle scores and silence opposition.

The contradiction is not lost on Nigerians. Many have pointed out the glaring disparity between Tinubu’s former principles and his current methods. Critics argue that his presidency is defined by a hunger for control, often at the expense of democratic values. The Fubara episode is only one example. Others cite the pliant posture of the legislature, the muted courts, and an executive branch that often acts without restraint.

For Shettima, the risk of speaking up is enormous. Nigerian political history is littered with deputies who fell out of favor and paid dearly. Tinubu himself has a track record of not tolerating insubordination from his second-in-commands. From Kofo Akerele-Bucknor to Femi Pedro, history shows that Tinubu has little patience for dissent. Once loyalty is questioned, consequences follow.

Still, Shettima is not a lightweight. He is seasoned, with a strong support base in the North-East. He commands respect within the All Progressives Congress (APC) and has built alliances that could prove vital if push comes to shove. Removing him would not be without consequences. It could split the party along regional lines, especially with growing unease among Northern stakeholders over what they see as Tinubu’s increasingly unilateral style.

Recent events only amplify that anxiety. During the APC North-East stakeholders’ meeting in Gombe, Shettima’s conspicuous exclusion from a Tinubu endorsement raised eyebrows. The omission was seen not as an oversight but a deliberate political signal. His supporters reacted strongly, vowing to resist any attempt to sideline their leader. The tension is rising, and the stakes are becoming clearer.

Those familiar with Nigeria’s political terrain understand the gravity of such rifts. Presidential tickets are forged not only for electoral success but also as symbols of national balance. Dropping Shettima ahead of the 2027 elections would be read by many in the North as a breach of that balance, potentially alienating a crucial voting bloc. Yet retaining him could mean tolerating a vice president who has shown a willingness to challenge authority publicly, or at the very least, signal dissatisfaction through strategic storytelling.

This delicate situation places Tinubu in a bind. His administration is already grappling with economic woes, insecurity, and eroding public trust. An internal power struggle would only deepen perceptions of instability. Moreover, the narrative of a president who punishes deputies for asserting independence could damage his legacy, especially among those who once saw him as a pro-democracy stalwart.

Shettima, on the other hand, appears to be playing a long game. His recent comments suggest a man who is not merely venting frustrations but positioning himself for the future. Whether he remains on the 2027 ticket or charts an independent path, his latest move has earned him credibility as someone willing to speak truth in a climate of fear. He may have just offered Northern leaders and other disillusioned political blocs a rallying point.

Yet, this is no fairytale. The road ahead is uncertain. Tinubu remains a formidable force in Nigerian politics, known for his political engineering and knack for turning adversity into advantage. He will not take kindly to perceived disloyalty, especially as he eyes a second term. The presidency is expected to respond, perhaps not with public statements but through subtle political maneuvering aimed at weakening Shettima’s standing.

Observers are already asking: is this the beginning of an open political battle or just a warning shot? Could Shettima’s truth-telling evolve into a full-blown campaign of resistance? Or will Tinubu reassert dominance, silencing dissent and consolidating power as he has done before?

What is certain is that Nigerian politics has entered a new phase. The days of undisputed loyalty within the presidency may be over. Shettima has crossed a line, and the consequences could redefine both his career and Tinubu’s legacy. Whether this becomes a mere footnote or a political turning point depends on what follows.

But the silence that once protected wrongdoing has been broken. The truth, once whispered in corners, is now echoing through national discourse. Tinubu may yet weather the storm, but the cracks in his house are visible. And in Nigerian politics, once a roof starts to leak, the collapse can come quickly.

The next moves from both camps will determine whether the presidency emerges united or fractured. For now, Nigerians are watching closely, knowing that within every subtle jab lies the potential for a political earthquake.