The All Progressives Congress (APC) in Rivers State has rejected claims that political interference influenced its House of Assembly screening exercise, as tensions between camps loyal to FCT Minister Nyesom Wike and Governor Siminalayi Fubara continue to simmer.
The controversy, which has cast a shadow over the party’s preparations ahead of the forthcoming state legislative elections, centers on claims that aspirants perceived to be aligned with Governor Fubara were systematically denied clearance, while those believed to enjoy the backing of Minister Wike sailed through without hindrance.
The allegations have touched a raw nerve in a state where the political rivalry between Wike and Fubara, once allies turned bitter adversaries, has defined the landscape of governance and party politics for over two years.
Addressing journalists at the APC State Secretariat in Port Harcourt, the party’s publicity secretary, Chibuike Ikenga, moved swiftly to extinguish what he characterized as a dangerous and misleading narrative.
“These reports are unfair and entirely without basis,” Ikenga declared, insisting that Wike, who defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and has since publicly declared support for the re-election of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, holds no formal membership in the APC and therefore could not, by any logical or procedural standard, have influenced the screening exercise.
“Linking Wike to the outcome of this exercise is not only inappropriate, but it is also unfounded,” Ikenga stated, adding that the screening process was conducted in a transparent, peaceful, and orderly fashion consistent with the party’s constitutional guidelines.
According to figures released by the party, a total of ’98 aspirants’ participated in the screening exercise. Of these, only 33 were cleared, while a significant 65, representing roughly two-thirds of all participants, were not cleared.
The sheer scale of the disqualifications has inevitably fueled speculation about the criteria applied and whether the process was genuinely merit-based or politically orchestrated.
Abdul Mahmud, Chairman of the Appeal Committee constituted by the party to review grievances arising from the exercise, confirmed the figures while offering assurances that the process remained firmly guided by documentary evidence. “We place greater importance on documents submitted before the panel than on oral submissions,” Mahmud told reporters, signaling a strict, paper-trail approach to adjudication.
He disclosed that the committee had been receiving and processing petitions from aggrieved aspirants and was expected to conclude its sitting by May 13, 2026.
In a gesture that suggests some acknowledgement of procedural gaps, Mahmud also revealed that aspirants who had failed to submit certain required documents during the initial screening had been granted an opportunity to provide them before the close of the appeal window, a concession that, to critics, raises questions about the consistency and rigor with which the original screening was administered.
On the ground, however, the stories emerging from disqualified aspirants paint a picture of frustration, confusion, and what some describe as procedural unfairness—regardless of any political motivation.
Gogo Friday, an aspirant for the Andoni Constituency, expressed indignation at what he described as a failure of basic communication. Despite having purchased his nomination forms and participated fully in the screening exercise, Friday said he was never officially informed of the reasons for his non-clearance.
It was only through the appeal committee process, he said, that he learned two reasons had been cited against him: that some of the party members who nominated him had not paid their party dues and that discrepancies existed between names appearing on some of his submitted documents.
“How can a party take a man’s money, subject him to a screening, and not even have the decency to tell him why he was disqualified?” Friday, he reportedly questioned, visibly exasperated by the experience.
The case of Atuzie Collins, an aspirant for ‘Obio/Akpor Constituency II,’ is equally telling. Collins revealed that his initial disqualification stemmed from nothing more consequential than a spelling discrepancy on his voter’s card, a clerical irregularity common among millions of Nigerian voters navigating a documentation system long criticized for inconsistencies.
Collins said he had since sworn a statutory affidavit to address the error, arguing that such a minor discrepancy was legally and morally insufficient grounds for disqualification from a democratic process.
His case, he argued, reflected a troubling rigidity in the screening committee’s approach, one that, when applied selectively, could easily become a tool for targeted exclusion.
The Wike-Fubara feud, which erupted publicly in late 2023 and has since engulfed Rivers State in a protracted constitutional and political crisis, has made virtually every significant political development in the state a subject of partisan interpretation.
Wike, who served as Rivers State Governor for two terms before his controversial alignment with the Tinubu administration, continues to wield enormous influence over a significant segment of the state’s political machinery, even from his perch in Abuja as FCT minister.
Fubara, his anointed successor who ultimately turned against him, has in turn sought to consolidate his own political base across the state’s institutions.
That the APC screening exercise has become embroiled in this rivalry, or at least is perceived to have done so, is itself a reflection of how deeply the fault lines between both camps have permeated every tier of political activity in Rivers State.
With the appeal committee set to conclude its sitting on May 13, its decisions are likely to either defuse or further inflame tensions within the party.
Should a substantial number of the 65 disqualified aspirants, particularly those aligned with one political faction, find their petitions dismissed without satisfactory explanation, the allegations of bias will almost certainly intensify.
For the APC, which is navigating the delicate task of consolidating its foothold in a state historically dominated by the PDP, the manner in which it resolves these internal grievances will be an early and significant test of its capacity to function as a credible democratic institution in Rivers State, rather than simply another theatre for the ongoing power struggle between Nyesom Wike and Siminalayi Fubara.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW
The APC’s screening controversy in Rivers State is ultimately less about administrative procedure and more about the enduring power struggle between FCT Minister Nyesom Wike and Governor Siminalayi Fubara.
While the party insists the process was transparent and rule-based, the disqualification of nearly two-thirds of all aspirants, combined with firsthand accounts of poor communication and petty documentary grounds for exclusion, gives legitimate cause for suspicion.
Until the appeal committee delivers its verdict on May 13, the central question remains unanswered: was this a flawed but honest screening exercise or a political instrument wielded in one faction’s favor?
