Politics

By Zayyad I. Muhammad

Nigeria’s Fourth Republic, which commenced in 1999, introduced a distinctive political culture that has since become entrenched in the nation’s democratic practice. Governors automatically emerge as leaders of their political parties in their respective states.

Although this arrangement is not expressly written into the 1999 Constitution or party constitutions as a rigid rule, it has evolved into an accepted political convention. In practical terms, once a governor belongs to a political party, he becomes the undisputed leader of that party in the state.

This “default” leadership status flows from the enormous constitutional powers, financial control, and political influence vested in state governors. Under the 1999 Constitution, governors are the chief executives of their states, control significant public resources, influence appointments, and play central roles in policy direction. These powers naturally position them as dominant actors within the political structure of their states. Political parties, being vehicles for acquiring and exercising power, inevitably gravitate toward the governor as their rallying point.

Critics often argue that this arrangement departs from earlier republican experiences. During Nigeria’s First, Second, and even Third Republics, governors and presidents were not automatically regarded as the formal leaders of their parties at the state or national levels. Party structures were often more independent, with clearer institutional separation between party leadership and executive office holders. However, Nigeria’s political system has evolved significantly since then. The current democratic framework places far greater burden, administrative authority, fiscal control, and political leverage in the hands of governors than was previously the case. It’s about the position!

The emergence of governors as de facto party leaders is not accidental but a result of political evolution shaped by key realities. The 1999 Constitution centralises executive authority in governors, making them the most powerful figures in their states. They also control critical political resources, finances, networks, appointments, and patronage, which are essential for party survival and electoral success. In a competitive electoral environment, incumbency provides structure, visibility, and mobilisation strength that few others can match.

Above all, political parties require unified command; without clear leadership at the state level, factionalism and instability can easily arise.

Imagine the chaos and unhealthy rivalry that could engulf a political party if a sitting governor chose to remain indifferent to party affairs. Competing factions would struggle for supremacy. Conflicting directives could weaken party cohesion. Such fragmentation could easily cost the party elections and governance effectiveness.

Furthermore, when it comes to interfacing between the executive arm at the federal level and party structures within the states, particularly in matters relating to appointments, political negotiations, federal-state collaboration, and reward systems, the governor’s role becomes indispensable. Governors serve as the bridge between national party leadership and grassroots political actors. In fact, Presidents often rely on Governors to win a state 

Just as the President functions as the leader of his party at the national level, governors serving as party leaders in their states create symmetry within the political order. This structure promotes stability, clarity of authority, strategic coordination, and internal discipline.

It is therefore not surprising that across Nigeria’s 21 registered political parties, this practice is widely accepted. Once a governor joins a party, he naturally assumes leadership of that party in the state, not necessarily by proclamation, but by political reality.

While debates may continue about whether this system strengthens internal party democracy or concentrates excessive influence in one individual, its practical utility in maintaining order, direction, and electoral viability cannot be ignored.

The emergence of governors as party leaders in their states reflects the reality on the ground, political necessity, and democratic evolution in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic.

Zayyad I. Muhammad writes from Abuja via zaymohd@yahoo.com.

By Muhammad Sulaiman

The Alumni of the Kashim Ibrahim Fellowship have called for the immediate release of former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai, describing his continued detention as unlawful and a violation of his fundamental human rights.

In a press statement issued on Monday, the group expressed “deep concern” over what it termed the illegal detention of El-Rufai, arguing that it contravenes constitutional guarantees of personal liberty, dignity and due process under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The alumni further criticised the Department of State Services (DSS) for failing to produce the former governor before the Federal High Court on February 25, 2026, stating that this action infringes his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time as provided under Section 36 of the Constitution.

According to the statement, the right to be brought promptly before a court is “not discretionary but an essential safeguard of personal liberty and justice.” The group urged all relevant authorities to ensure strict adherence to constitutional provisions and uphold the rule of law.

The fellowship alumni also highlighted El-Rufai’s record in public service, particularly his tenure as governor of Kaduna State, where they said he implemented institutional reforms and socio-economic development programmes with measurable impact. They noted that the establishment of the Kashim Ibrahim Fellowship was among his initiatives to encourage youth participation in governance and leadership.

Reaffirming their solidarity, the group called on well-meaning Nigerians to support their demand for justice and due process. They insisted that every citizen is entitled to protection from unlawful detention and urged authorities to grant El-Rufai full rights to defend himself without prejudice.

The statement concluded with a renewed demand for his immediate release, emphasising that adherence to democratic principles and the rule of law is critical to strengthening public trust in national institutions.

By Umar Sani Adamu (Kawun Baba)

The defection of Kano State Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf from the New Nigeria Peoples Party, NNPP, to the All Progressives Congress, APC, has exposed more than a political shift. It has laid bare the fragility of slogans elevated above reason and the contradictions within Kano’s dominant political movement.

For years, the phrase “Mayiyan Kano” was used by followers of Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso whenever events did not go their way. It served as a blanket response to court rulings, electoral outcomes, and opposing views. What began as a casual expression gradually hardened into a political shield used to dismiss criticism rather than engage it.

Ironically, Governor Yusuf was once celebrated as the ultimate proof of loyalty to the Kwankwasiyya structure. A report by The Daily Reality during the early phase of his administration went to remarkable lengths to present him as a devoted disciple of his mentor and political godfather. His actions, his rhetoric, and even his body language were framed as evidence of unquestionable allegiance. At the time, loyalty was portrayed as a virtue, and Yusuf was held up as its finest example.

That narrative has now collapsed under the weight of political reality. Following his defection, the same voices that once applauded his loyalty have rushed to brand him disloyal. The sudden moral outrage is striking not because politicians change camps but because of the selective memory at play. If loyalty were absolute, then it should have been defined beyond convenience. If it were conditional, then honesty demands admitting that politics is transactional, not sentimental.

The revival of Makiyan Kano, that’s “The enemy of Kano” or “One who works against the interests of Kano”. In this context reveals its emptiness. Rather than interrogate why a sitting governor would abandon the platform that brought him to power, some loyalists have retreated to slogans. It is easier to chant than to reflect. Easier to accuse than to accept that political authority ultimately rests with individuals, not movements.

What this moment exposes is a deeper problem within Kano politics: the attempt to freeze loyalty in time while ignoring changing realities. Governance is not sustained by personal allegiance to a mentor but by navigating power structures, resources, and national relevance. To pretend otherwise is to confuse political romance with political responsibility.

Supporters of the governor argue that his decision was informed by pragmatism and the pursuit of Kano’s broader interests. Whether one agrees or not, it is a position that deserves debate, not dismissal. Slogans do not govern states. Decisions do.

Makiyan Kano has returned to public discourse, but its meaning has shifted. It no longer signals confidence. It now sounds like frustration. In the end, movements that rely on chants instead of ideas often struggle when reality refuses to cooperate. Kano politics appears to be learning that lesson the hard way.

Umar Sani Adamu (Kawun Baba) wrote via umarhashidu1994@gmail.com.

By Anwar Usman

The Peoples Democratic Party has criticised Governor Ahmadu Fintiri’s defection to the All Progressives Congress, describing his exit as an act of cowardice that undermines the principles of multi-party system of government in Nigeria.

Tanimu Turaki (SAN)-led PDP National Working Committee, through its National Publicity Secretary, Ini Ememobong, on Friday reminded Fintiri that history and posterity serve as the ultimate and impartial judges of human actions, constantly recording both deeds and omissions.

After weeks of speculation, Fintiri formally left the PDP and joined the ruling All Progressives Congress on Friday.

In response, the Peoples Democratic Party stated that Fintiri’s decision to leave a platform that supported his political journey through multiple election cycles over minor inconveniences clearly shows unrestrained cowardice rather than the conduct of a principled politician.

The party stated that “We are aware of the official announcement of the long-speculated defection of His Excellency, Governor Ahmadu Fintiri, from our party to the All Progressives Congress, today via a broadcast in Adamawa State.

“This move, though long speculated, had attracted several rebuttals from the governor himself, even as recently as last week, after the presidential visit to Adamawa. By this announcement, the governor himself has confirmed what hitherto was a rumour, by aligning with the ruling party, a move he says is in the developmental interest of his state.

“While we acknowledge that this move is well within Fintiri’s legal rights, it is clearly against political principles and morality, a challenge to multi-party democracy and democratic consolidation.

The PDP urged its members in Adamawa State to accept what it described as a sad reality with composure.

The party further reiterated that “They should remain resolute in the hope that the rebirth movement of our party is on course and will certainly reposition our party back to winning ways”.

By Zayyad I. Muhammad

Out of the estimated 1.68 million registered voters in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), only about 239,210 turned out to vote, representing roughly 14–15% voter participation. This figure is not only worrisome but also indicative of a deeper democratic challenge that cannot be ignored.

The 2026 FCT Area Councils elections, therefore, require a thorough post-mortem, an autopsy, so to speak, to uncover the root causes of this low turnout. Was it voter fatigue, dissatisfaction with political actors, lack of awareness, logistical shortcomings, security concerns, or a general loss of confidence in the electoral process? These questions must be carefully examined through data-driven analysis and stakeholder engagement.

Some observers believed the imposed restriction on movement contributed significantly to the low turnout, as it may have discouraged or inconvenienced many eligible voters. Others pointed to what they described as the ruling APC’s overwhelming posture, which some voters perceived as so dominant that their participation would not alter the outcome. In their view, even if they turned out to vote, the APC was certain to win, and their individual votes would not make a meaningful difference.

Addressing this level of voter apathy is critical, especially with the 2027 general elections approaching. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), political parties, civil society organisations, and other relevant authorities, including students of politics, must take proactive steps to rebuild public trust, strengthen voter education, review election-day policies such as movement restrictions, improve logistics, and enhance transparency, as well as conduct an academic analysis of ‘Why’.

A democracy thrives on active citizen participation. If such low turnout persists, it risks weakening the legitimacy of elected officials and undermining public confidence in the democratic system. The lessons from the FCT elections should therefore serve as an urgent call to action to ensure broader voter mobilisation and participation in future electoral cycles.

Zayyad I. Muhammad writes from Abuja via zaymohd@yahoo.com.

By Kamal Alkasim

The PDP candidate’s manifesto during his campaign focused on community welfare, women’s empowerment, improved healthcare services, and enhanced education opportunities for children.

The Premium Times reported that the PDP defeated its contender from the All Progressives Congress (APC), Yahaya Shehu, who scored 17,788 votes.

Declaring Mr Kasim as the winner, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Returning Officer, Philip Akpen, said the election was peaceful and smooth.

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Mohammed Kasim, has won the Gwagwalada Area Council chairmanship in the local government elections held across the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) on Sunday.

Mr Kashim polled 22,165 votes to defeat his rivals in the election.

Mr Kasim’s manifesto during his campaign focused on community welfare, women’s empowerment, improved healthcare services, and enhanced education opportunities for children.

The elections were in two categories: the chairmanship and the councillorship.

PDP pulled through in the election at a time it is facing its most devastating crisis, which has led to division in its national leadership and loss of governors and lawmakers elected on its platform to the All Progressives Congress (APC) and its top figures, such as the former vice president, Atiku Abubakar, to the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

Although the outcome of the local election does not necessarily mirror the PDP’s popularity at the national level, it is a significant victory for the party in a section of Nigeria’s capital, reflecting the country’s multi-ethnic and multi-religious composition.

It may also point to the fact that APC’s enhanced dominance, driven by high-profile defections from opposition parties to its fold in the last year, may not have taken strong hold in many local areas of the country.

INEC conducted the local elections across the six council areas of the FCT, including Gwagwalada, on Saturday. The rest are the Abuja Municipal Area Council (AMAC), Abaji, Kwali, Abaji and Kuje.

Kamal Alkasim

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has declared two All Progressives Congress (APC) candidates as winners of Saturday’s by-elections in Rivers state.

TheCable reported that the by-elections were conducted to fill vacant seats in the state house of assembly — Ahoada East constituency II and Khana constituency II.

Napoleon Ukalikpe of APC was declared the winner of Ahoada East constituency II with 3,980 votes, while his closest challenger, Godstime Egor of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), scored 38 votes.

For the Khana constituency II seat, Bulabari Henrietta Loolo of APC won the poll with 7,647 votes, while Anthony Ndor of Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) garnered 47 votes.

Ahoada East constituency II seat became vacant following the resignation of Ehie Edison, who is now the chief of staff (CoS) to Siminalayi Fubara, governor of Rivers state.

Dinebari Loolo’s death in September 2023 created the vacancy for the Khana constituency II seat in the Rivers House of Assembly.

TheCable observed that the African Democratic Congress (ADC), the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and the Labour Party (LP) were absent from the ballot sheets for the by-elections.

By Dr. Saifullahi Shehu Imam

Politics is often debated in abstract terms of strategy and alignment. But sometimes, it is written in the language of the streets, the markets and the stadiums.

The formal reception of Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf into the All Progressives Congress (APC) was one such moment, but to define it merely as a “defection” is to miss the profound human story at its core.

From the moment the Vice President of Nigeria, Alhaji Kashim Shettima’s delegation touched down at Malam Aminu Kano International Airport, it was clear this was not a routine political event; it was a historic convergence of federal intent and grassroots will.

The journey to the Sani Abacha Stadium was, in itself, a powerful political narrative. The first stop was not a politician’s lounge, but the fire-ravaged Singer Market. There, amidst the charred remains of shops and livelihoods, the Vice President Shettima delivered more than just a condolence message, where he also announced a concrete federal commitment of ₦5 billion to support the affected traders. This was not a symbolic politics; it was governance meeting grief with action.

For the traders of Kano, this single act transformed a political realignment into a tangible promise of partnership. It signaled that Kano’s alignment with the centre has already started yielding immediate, practical and tangible support for its people in their moment of need.

From the market, the procession to the stadium became a rolling testament to the depth of this new alliance. The mammoth crowd that lined the streets and filled the venue was not a rented gathering. It was a cross-section of Kano’s very soul. This massive turnout was more than a welcome party; it was a clear and potent signal of electoral mathematics. Public energy of that magnitude rarely gathers around symbolism alone; it gathers around expectation. It was a strong indication that the APC, now fortified with Governor Yusuf’s leadership and grassroots structure, is poised for a landslide in 2027.

The message from the crowd was unambiguous. The coast is clear for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to secure Kano’s votes, for Governor Abba to secure a second term, and for the party to sweep elections from the National Assembly down to the State Assembly.
In his address, Governor Yusuf framed the move not as a personal ambition, but as a strategic decision to bring Kano into the “mainstream of our national politics” and align with President Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Agenda. The logic is undeniable. Kano, as the North’s commercial and demographic powerhouse, has often been held back by being at odds with the federal government. This realignment changes that equation overnight. It means Kano will no longer be a political outlier but a primary beneficiary of federal infrastructure, economic investment, and developmental programmes. It means a direct pipeline from the Renewed Hope Train to the heart of Kano. This is what “Kano First with Renewed Hope” truly means. It means a new compact where federal power is not a distant concept but a present partner in progress. The foundation has been laid, not in sand, but in the solidarity of its people. Now, the work of building a greater Kano begins.

Dr. S.S. Imam is a senior researcher and a political analyst from Bayero University, Kano, Nigeria. He can be reached via: saifaz2005@gmail.com

By Kamal Alkasim

Kenneth Eze (APC-Ebonyi) has called for a nationwide debate on replacing Nigeria’s current two-term, four-year presidential cycle with a single 16-year tenure.

(APC-Ebonyi) has called fotionwide debate on replacing Nigeria’s current two-term, four-year presidential cycle with a single 16-year tenure.

Mr Eze, chairman of the Senate Committee on Information and National Orientation, said this on Monday while addressing journalists at his Ohigbo-Amagu country home in Ezza South LGA.

He noted that frequent election cycles undermined policy continuity and stalled national development.

“Every four years, we return to campaign mode. By the third year, governance slows as attention shifts to re-election; that is why projects are abandoned, and policies are not allowed to mature.

“Nigeria’s constitution provides for a four-year presidential term, renewable once, but if you ask me, I will advocate one tenure of 16 years. It sounds controversial, but it will allow policies to run their full course and stabilise the system,” Mr Eze explained.

Mr Eze, therefore, proposed scrapping the two-term structure in favour of a single, extended tenure that would free leaders from electoral pressures and enable them to pursue long-term reforms.

The lawmaker noted that critical sectors such as power, infrastructure, agriculture and fiscal reform required sustained commitment beyond short political cycles.

According to him, irrigation schemes, mechanised farming programmes, and energy reforms require continuity to yield a measurable impact. He defended recent economic measures, including the removal of the fuel subsidy, describing them as unavoidable steps to avert fiscal collapse.

”We were borrowing to pay salaries. That is not sustainable for any country; tough decisions are necessary to secure long-term stability,” said Mr Eze.

Mr Eze maintained that his proposal should be seen as a governance conversation, not an assault on democracy. He called for a broader national dialogue on constitutional reform to determine whether an extended tenure could improve implementation while preserving checks and balances.

He acknowledged that any amendment would require approval by the National Assembly and ratification by state legislatures, but stressed that the process must remain transparent and participatory.

Beyond tenure reform, Mr Eze urged citizens to embrace civic responsibility and patriotism. He challenged journalists, teachers, civil servants and parents to promote national values, warning that policy changes alone could not transform the country.

By Abdulhamid Abdullahi Aliyu

Nigeria has seen political fallouts before, but few are as unsettling as the growing public rupture between Nasir El‑Rufai and Nuhu Ribadu. What makes the moment troubling is not merely the personalities involved, but what their dispute threatens to do to national cohesion, public trust and the already fragile boundary between politics and security.

If two men who once symbolised reformist zeal and institutional courage now choose a path of mutual destruction, they should pause and reflect—on their faith, their region, and the national interest. Because stripped of rhetoric and television soundbites, this is no longer about governance, security reform or leadership ethics. It is the bare-knuckle politics of succession, alignment and survival ahead of the next election cycle.

There was a time when this clash would have been unthinkable. Both men emerged from the same political generation shaped by the reformist moment of the early 2000s under Olusegun Obasanjo. El-Rufai, the outspoken technocrat as Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, and Ribadu, the dogged anti-corruption crusader as Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, were once celebrated as “Obasanjo’s boys”—symbols of a new order that promised discipline, accountability and institutional renewal.

They shared proximity to power, similar access to the president, and a reputation for fearlessness. Their friendship appeared not only political but personal—jolly, confident, mutually reinforcing. That such men could become open adversaries a decade later is not just strange; it is genuinely shocking.

What, then, went wrong? Part of the answer lies in the nature of Nigerian elite politics, where alliances are often forged by circumstance rather than conviction. Power rearranges loyalties. Ambition redraws friendships. And as the political terrain shifts, yesterday’s allies can quickly become today’s obstacles.

But there is a deeper, more consequential problem. When elite rivalries migrate into the realm of security narratives and intelligence insinuations, the damage goes far beyond the individuals involved. Allegations and counter-allegations—especially those touching on surveillance, coercion or misuse of state power—can corrode public confidence in institutions that should remain above partisan struggle.

This is why the current El-Rufai–Ribadu episode deserves sober national reflection, not cheering from partisan sidelines. Nigeria is a country where trust in institutions is already thin. Security agencies operate in an environment of suspicion, insurgency and widespread fear. When senior political actors publicly weaponise security claims—whether substantiated or not—they risk weakening the very structures holding the state together.

It is also important to situate this dispute within the broader northern political landscape. Both men command followings. Both are seen, rightly or wrongly, as voices of influence in the region’s political future. Their feud therefore does not remain personal for long; it reverberates across communities, factions and aspirations. In a region already grappling with insecurity, poverty and political fragmentation, elite infighting of this nature sends the wrong signal.

Faith, too, imposes restraint. Public officials who openly profess moral and religious values must recognise that conduct matters, not just intent. Politics may be a rough trade, but there are lines that, once crossed, are difficult to redraw. The public expects elders of the political class to rise above personal grievances when national stability is at stake.

None of this is to deny that grievances can be real, or that power can be abused. Whistleblowing has its place. Accountability is essential. But there is a difference between principled dissent and public escalation that inflames tension, invites speculation and drags sensitive institutions into political theatre. Mature democracies resolve such disputes through discreet inquiry and institutional processes, not media duels.

Perhaps the most sobering lesson here is how quickly reformist legacies can be overshadowed by personal wars. History is rarely kind to public figures who allow ambition to consume perspective. Nigerians may forget policy details, but they remember conduct—especially when it appears reckless or self-serving.

As the country edges closer to another election cycle, the temptation to settle scores early and loudly will grow. That is precisely why restraint is needed now. The question is not who wins this clash, but what Nigeria loses if it continues.

El-Rufai and Ribadu have both served the Nigerian state at critical moments. Their names are etched into recent political history. They owe the country—and perhaps themselves—something better than mutual ruin. Because when elephants fight, it is not the elephants that suffer most, but the grass beneath them.

Nigeria cannot afford to be that grass.

Abdulhamid Abdullahi Aliyu is a journalist and syndicate writer based in Abuja.