In a compelling video broadcast on Symfoni TV, prominent Human Rights and Niger Delta Environmental Activist Ann-Kio Briggs has drawn attention to the historical parallels between President Bola Tinubu’s experiences as Lagos State governor and the current situation facing Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara.
The activist highlighted the stark contrast between Tinubu’s treatment as Lagos governor under former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration and his current approach to the Rivers State crisis as president. Briggs emphasized how Tinubu, despite his fierce opposition to Obasanjo’s policies, ultimately received substantial federal support.
“When the president (Tinubu) was the governor of Lagos State, Obasanjo did not do to him what he has done to Fubara today as he is the president,” Briggs stated. “Look at how he fought Obasanjo, he fought Obasanjo hands down. Eventually, all his money was paid to him, he got everything that he wanted.”
The activist’s comparison carries particular weight given Nigeria’s political history, drawing attention to how past federal-state relationships might inform current political dynamics. Briggs’s statement suggests that Tinubu’s own experience as a governor who successfully opposed federal authority while maintaining state autonomy should inform his current approach to state-federal relations.
Political analysts note that this historical parallel raises important questions about the evolution of federal-state relationships in Nigeria’s democracy. The comparison between Tinubu’s past struggles and his current position of power provides a unique perspective on the cyclical nature of Nigerian politics.
The activist’s remarks have sparked renewed discussions about political consistency and the responsibilities of federal leadership. By highlighting Tinubu’s transition from state governor to president, Briggs’s commentary underscores the importance of historical context in understanding and addressing current political crises.
This revelation adds another dimension to the ongoing discourse about federal intervention in state affairs, suggesting that personal experience and historical precedent should guide current political decision-making at the highest levels of government.
