A Vice President's Bold Constitutional Rebuke: Shettima's Calculated Challenge To Tinubu – An Act Of Honest Leadership Benefiting Nigeria

Vice-President Kashim Shettima's recent public statements, seemingly a historical anecdote, are in fact a potent and arguably unprecedented challenge to President Bola Tinubu's executive actions. This move, especially when viewed through a psychological lens and amidst swirling rumors of a fractured relationship, presents Shettima as a leader willing to stake his personal and political integrity on constitutional principles, even if it means direct, implicit dissent against his superior.

Shettima's Personal History: A Foundation for Perceived Honesty and Vulnerability

Shettima's recounting of how former President Goodluck Jonathan attempted to remove him as Borno governor (2011-2019) is not merely a historical note; it's a deeply personal narrative of vulnerability and resilience. He explicitly detailed how Jonathan's efforts were thwarted by legal counsel from figures like Mohammed Adoke and Aminu Tambuwal, who asserted that the President lacked the constitutional power to remove an elected governor. Shettima's public praise for their "courage, conviction, and unwavering commitment to his principles" is crucial.

Psychologically, by framing himself as someone who personally benefited from the upholding of constitutional limits against executive overreach, Shettima positions himself as a defender of the rule of law. He's not speaking abstractly; he's sharing a lived experience where constitutional adherence directly preserved his mandate. This vulnerability – revealing that he, too, faced the threat of arbitrary removal – can foster a perception of honesty and integrity. It implies that his current stance is not opportunistic but rooted in a fundamental belief in constitutional governance, validated by his own past. This personal narrative serves as a powerful psychological anchor for his perceived credibility, making his subsequent critiques resonate with an authenticity that a purely legal argument might lack.

Tinubu's Rivers State Action: The Catalyst for Shettima'sStand

In stark contrast to the constitutional restraint demonstrated by Jonathan's administration (as narrated by Shettima), President Bola Tinubu on March 18, 2025, declared a state of emergency in Rivers State amidst a protracted political crisis and violence. As part of this declaration, Tinubu suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and the State House of Assembly for six months, appointing a retired Vice Admiral as administrator. Tinubu cited the governor's alleged failure to address pipeline vandalism and efforts to collapse the state legislature.

This action by President Tinubu directly contradicts the constitutional principle Shettima championed, where even under emergency rule, elected governors were not removed. This places Tinubu's move in a historically controversial light, echoing earlier precedents like former President Olusegun Obasanjo's declaration of emergency in Plateau State in 2004, which led to the ouster of Governor Joshua Dariye. Constitutional legal scholars in Nigeria have consistently argued that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which grants the President the power to declare a state of emergency, does not explicitly or implicitly empower the President to suspend elected state officials. The power to remove a governor is vested solely in the State House of Assembly through impeachment processes outlined in Sections 188 and 189.

The Direct Rebuke: A Vice President Challenges His Own President and Legislative Leadership

Shettima's public recounting of his experience, immediately after Tinubu's controversial decision in Rivers State, is a deliberate and direct, though implicit, rebuke. By emphasizing how Jonathan tried to remove him but was constrained by constitutional limits and legal advice, Shettima draws an unmistakable parallel, pointing out a significant deviation from that constitutional norm by the current administration. He doesn't need to explicitly say "President Tinubu is wrong"; the historical narrative serves as a potent and clear challenge to the very basis of Tinubu's action in Rivers.

Crucially, Shettima's narrative also contains a subtle, yet powerful, rebuke to the current leadership of the National Assembly, namely the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abbas, and the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio. He specifically recalled that in Jonathan's time, "Aminu Tambuwal, the then Speaker of the House of Representatives had the courage to tell the President that your Excellency, you don't have the powers to remove an elected councillor." This implicitly questions why the current leadership of the National Assembly – the Speaker and the Senate President – in a system modeled after the US where legislative oversight is paramount, would allow such an "illegality" to occur without similar robust constitutional pushback. Shettima's personal history as a beneficiary of this constitutional principle lends powerful authenticity to his message, positioning him as a principled advocate for the rule of law and subtly indicting those who failed to uphold it in this instance concerning Governor Fubara.

A Calculated, Honest Rebuke Amidst Deepening Tensions

The political atmosphere surrounding Shettima and Tinubu adds a crucial psychological layer to this "rebuke." Public whispers about a "tense relationship" and widespread speculation about Tinubu not retaining Shettima for a second term have been circulating. This was further fueled by Shettima's notable omission from endorsements for Tinubu's 2027 bid at a recent APC North-East stakeholders' meeting.

From a psychological perspective, if Shettima genuinely believes his political future with Tinubu is uncertain, his actions can be viewed as a calculated act of honest defiance and self-preservation.

Embracing Vulnerability for Credibility: By openly referencing his own past vulnerability, Shettima demonstrates a willingness to engage in political discourse with a degree of frankness that is often missing in power circles. This perceived vulnerability can enhance his credibility and make his arguments for constitutionalism resonate more deeply with the public. It's a strategic use of his personal narrative to elevate his public standing and moral authority.

Principle over Expediency: In a political landscape often characterized by Machiavellian maneuvering, Shettima'sdecision to publicly highlight a constitutional precedent that directly undermines his principal's recent action can be interpreted as prioritizing principle over political expediency. This stance, particularly when his own political future is rumored to be at stake, can contribute to a perception of honesty and moral courage. It suggests he's willing to risk his position for what he believes is right, positioning himself as a leader of conviction rather than pure political ambition.

A "Disgrace" as a Moral Statement and Power Play: As you keenly observed, the possibility that Shettima came to the "conclusion I will disgrace you" implies a deeper psychological motivation beyond simple political disagreement. This "disgrace" isn't merely personal revenge; it's a public assertion of a moral and constitutional high ground. By demonstrating that he (and the constitution) stood firm against a powerful president, he effectively highlights a perceived constitutional lapse by the current one. This becomes a way to signal to the public and political elite that he is a leader who upholds fundamental tenets, even at personal cost. This is a subtle yet potent power play, seeking to diminish Tinubu's perceived moral authority by highlighting a potential constitutional transgression and, by extension, that of the legislative leaders who acquiesced to it.

Shettima's words during the occasion are very telling, signaling deeper messages to his current boss and those who may believe they are above accountability: “There is silence to preserve relationships. There is silence to protect secrets too delicate to disclose. And there is silence for memories we would rather forget. But as a generation of leaders, we must summon the courage to document our journeys,” he observed. He further described the author's narrative as an act of bravery, noting that Adoke’s characterization of himself as “bloodied but unbowed” will resonate with many who have served in government and experienced the high-stakes drama of public office. These statements can be interpreted as a direct call for transparency and accountability from leadership, implicitly challenging any attempts to suppress truths or disregard constitutional boundaries. They reflect a deeper psychological readiness to break traditional political silences for what he perceives as a greater good or a necessary reassertion of constitutional norms.

Unprecedented Directness: A Mark of Leadership and Honesty – Beyond American Precedent

This type of directedness from a sitting Vice President is first of its kind, not even seen in America, whose constitution Nigeria is broadly practicing, albeit often with notable deviations and inconsistencies. While the Nigerian 1999 Constitution (as amended) draws heavily from the US presidential system, its implementation has, at times, been characterized by an "odd" and "bad" practice of its principles, often leaning towards a more centralized and powerful executive than its American counterpart.

Let's expand on the comparison to US Vice Presidents:

Mike Pence vs. Donald Trump (Jan 6th, 2021): This is arguably the closest US parallel. Pence publicly defied Trump's demands to unilaterally overturn election results, citing his lack of constitutional authority. This was a direct, principled constitutional defiance on a specific, critical action at the very end of their term, leading to a profound and lasting breach. However, it was a singular, terminal crisis, not an ongoing, internal critique of broad executive power within the administration's broader policy or constitutional interpretation. Crucially, Pence's most vocal criticisms of Trump's post-presidency actions have come after leaving office. The expectation within the US executive branch is for almost absolute public loyalty from the VP while in office.

Dick Cheney vs. George W. Bush: Cheney was renowned for his power and influence, but his disagreements with Bush were almost exclusively internal and behind closed doors. Public displays of disunity were deliberately avoided, as their working relationship was built on a shared vision of executive power, even if they occasionally differed on specific applications. There is no record of Cheney openly rebuking Bush on policy or constitutional matters. His loyalty was a cornerstone of his effectiveness.

Al Gore vs. Bill Clinton: Gore's subtle attempts to distance himself from Clinton, particularly amid personal scandals, were primarily a political strategy for his own presidential bid. While a form of separation, it wasn't a direct constitutional or policy rebuke of the sitting President's governance. The emphasis was on establishing his own identity, not on challenging Clinton's actions on constitutional grounds.

Historical US VPs (e.g., John C. Calhoun vs. Andrew Jackson): Earlier periods saw more overt political opposition between Presidents and VPs, sometimes leading to the VP actively opposing the President's legislative agenda (e.g., Calhoun's nullification stance against Jackson). However, the modern Vice Presidency, especially since the mid-20th century, has evolved into a much more integrated and loyal partnership, characterized by the "team of rivals" model, but only as far as internal policy debates. Open, constitutional challenges from a sitting VP to their President's actions are virtually unheard of in contemporary US politics.

Shettima's current position within the administration, while delivering such a sharp, implicitly constitutional critique of a recent and ongoing presidential action and, by extension, the legislative leadership's role in its acquiescence, is what makes his act stand out even against these historical US examples. The US system, for all its occasional internal rifts, has rarely seen a sitting Vice President publicly leverage a constitutional principle in a way that so directly undermines a key action of their own administration, especially amidst rumors of a deepening political chasm. The very nature of the US Vice Presidency has become one of staunch public loyalty, even if private disagreements exist. Shettima's move boldly deviates from this unwritten rule, signaling a significant shift in political courage and expected decorum within Nigeria's executive branch.

Why This is Good for Nigeria: A Deepening Democratic Test

This is indeed a positive development for Nigerian democracy. I indirectly thank him for this.

Strengthening Checks and Balances and Rule of Law: Shettima'saction reinforces the critical importance of checks and balances within Nigeria's presidential system. By publicly questioning the constitutionality of a presidential action, he underlines the principle that no arm or individual of government is above the law. This bold assertion of constitutional limits, particularly from within the executive, is vital for preventing the accretion of unchecked power and for upholding the sanctity of the rule of law. It's a powerful signal that constitutional fidelity is not merely theoretical but must be actively defended.

Fostering Accountability and Transparency: By bringing this issue into the public domain, Shettima implicitly demands greater accountability from the executive and the legislature. It opens up critical public discourse and encourages legal and legislative scrutiny regarding the precise scope of emergency powers and the mechanisms for removing elected officials. Such transparency, even when uncomfortable, is essential for a healthy democracy, allowing citizens and institutions to demand answers and hold leaders responsible for their actions.

Enhancing Democratic Health and Public Trust: A vibrant democracy thrives on open debate and the fearless assertion of constitutional principles, even from within the ruling party. Shettima's perceived honesty and willingness to speak truth to power, especially given his unique position and rumored tensions, contributes to a more robust and mature democratic culture in Nigeria. It demonstrates that dissent and the defense of core democratic tenets are possible, even at the highest levels. This internal challenge acts as a critical self-correction mechanism, which is ultimately beneficial for the long-term stability and legitimacy of Nigerian governance by potentially increasing public trust in institutions that allow for such internal scrutiny.

Conclusion: A Psychological Cold War Begins in Aso Rock

We don’t know how this will end. But what is clear is that it will be a full-blown ride—not just between Shettima and Tinubu, but right there within Aso Rock itself: between the Office of the Vice President and his team, and the President’s own circle. The internal dynamics, trust, and even daily operations within the Presidential Villa are now under intense scrutiny. This public declaration has opened a new front in the ongoing political chess match, potentially affecting everything from policy debates to personnel decisions, making the ripple effects of this profound discourse truly unpredictable and fascinating to observe.

But one thing must be made clear: no direct or indirect attempt should be made to punish or frustrate Vice President Shettimaduring his remaining time in office—whether by Tinubu’s men or external loyalists. If such attempts are made, he is likely to push back hard. He knows a lot. He has seen a lot. And politically, he has little left to lose. This is no longer a matter of protocol—it is a psychological, constitutional, and personal standoff that could reshape the very equilibrium of the Nigerian presidency.

This writer, a psychologist, has no personal connection to any of the individuals mentioned. This commentary is written solely in pursuit of democratic accountability, justice, and good governance.

Professor John Egbeazien Oshodi is a U.S.-based psychologist, educator, and author with deep expertise in forensic, legal, and clinical psychology, cross-cultural psychology, and police and prison science. Born in Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria, and the son of a 37-year veteran of the Nigeria Police Force, his early immersion in law enforcement laid the foundation for a lifelong commitment to justice, institutional transformation, and psychological empowerment.

In 2011, he introduced state-of-the-art forensic psychology to Nigeria through the National Universities Commission and Nasarawa State University, where he served as Associate Professor of Psychology. Over the decades, he has taught at Florida Memorial University, Florida International University, Broward College (as Assistant Professor and Interim Associate Dean), Nova Southeastern University, and Lynn University. He currently teaches at Walden University and holds virtual academic roles with Weldios University and ISCOM University.

In the U.S., Prof. Oshodi serves as a government consultant in forensic-clinical psychology and leads professional and research initiatives through the Oshodi Foundation, the Center for Psychological and Forensic Services. He is the originator of Psychoafricalysis, a culturally anchored psychological model that integrates African sociocultural realities, historical memory, and symbolic-spiritual consciousness—offering a transformative alternative to dominant Western psychological paradigms.

A proud Black Republican, Professor Oshodi is a strong advocate for ethical leadership, institutional accountability, and renewed bonds between Africa and its global diaspora—working across borders to inspire psychological resilience, systemic reform, and forward-looking public dialogue.