Former Governor of Rivers State, Rotimi Amaechi, has stated that Nigeria’s political environment would be far more dynamic and confrontational if his generation of governors were still in power. Speaking in Abuja at the unveiling of former Jigawa State governor Sule Lamido’s autobiography, Being True to Myself, Amaechi emphasized that he and Lamido represented a more radical and outspoken era in Nigerian politics. He asserted that if he and his contemporaries were still in office, they would not hesitate to challenge President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his administration.
During the event, Amaechi reflected on the bold leadership style that characterized his tenure and that of his fellow governors, noting that their actions were often confrontational and aimed at holding the federal government accountable. “Would the current political developments be happening if we were governors?” Amaechi asked rhetorically. “The answer is no. We would have openly opposed the president and resisted any overreach of power.”
As the former chairman of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum during Lamido’s second term in office, Amaechi recalled their time together as politically intense yet principled. He acknowledged that although their relationship had its tensions and ideological differences—particularly over his leadership of the Forum—they maintained a shared commitment to reform and resistance against perceived federal dominance.
Amaechi revealed that one of their major political divergences occurred when some governors, including himself, split from then-President Goodluck Jonathan and aligned with the emerging All Progressives Congress (APC), while Lamido chose a different path and joined the Social Democratic Party (SDP).
He lauded Lamido’s political legacy and promised to contribute to the autobiography privately. Amaechi’s comments were made shortly after he publicly condemned President Tinubu’s recent actions in Rivers State, accusing the president of using state power to exert control over political figures in order to consolidate influence and secure future electoral support. He labeled the intervention a clear attempt at political dominance and criticized it as undermining democratic values.