Politics

By Uzair Adam 

Kaduna State Governor, Uba Sani, has said political leaders from northern Nigeria have failed the region and should collectively apologise to the people for decades of underdevelopment and neglect.

Speaking during an interview with Trust TV, Sani stressed that criticism of government policies should be driven by the genuine interest of the people and not by political ambition.

“Every democracy must allow criticism, but it must be constructive, and in the interest of the Nigerian people. That’s what we did as activists — not because we wanted power,” he said.

He noted that those who have held public office in the last two decades — including himself — bear responsibility for the challenges facing the region.

“Anyone who is from northern Nigeria and held a political office in the last 20 years, we all need to look at ourselves in the mirror and apologise to the people of northern Nigeria. We let them down,” he admitted.

Reflecting on his own time in office, the governor said the region’s problems stem from long-standing structural and economic neglect.

“I’ll say it here today — all of us; I was a senator in this country, and the problems of northern Nigeria didn’t start two years ago,” he added.

Sani also criticised the outcomes of the massive social intervention programmes under former president Muhammadu Buhari, saying they failed to uplift the region due to deep-rooted financial exclusion.

“Buhari spent hundreds of billions on social interventions,” he said. “But the North became poorer even after that because 70% of the population, especially the masses, were completely financially excluded.”

He pointed out that anyone who had served as a senator, minister, governor, or vice-president from the region over the past 20 years shares in the blame.

The governor cautioned politicians against misleading the public and lauded honest critics who maintain integrity and a people-first approach.

“We must not deceive the people of northern Nigeria. We must not mislead them. I’ve no problem with people criticising the government — people like Dan Bello Galadanchi. 

“Those individuals have the moral right to speak. But those who contributed to the rot and now claim to have repented — I think that’s wrong,” he said.

_________________________________

Muhsin Ibrahim, PhD

Institute of African Studies, 

University of Cologne 

Blog: www.muhsin.in

By Lawan Bukar Maigana 

From the ashes of battle-weary Borno to the powerful corridors of Aso Rock, Vice President Kashim Shettima has consistently defied the odds. His journey has never been one of privilege but of perseverance, grit, and unswerving faith in destiny.

As governor, he governed Borno State at a time when Boko Haram unleashed one of the worst humanitarian crises in Nigeria’s history. While others fled, Shettima stayed. He took bold, calculated risks to keep his people safe, rebuild destroyed communities, and stabilise a state under siege. Many thought Borno would collapse—yet under Shettima’s leadership, it stood.

Transitioning to the Senate, Shettima faced different types of warfare—political manoeuvring, underestimation, and party intrigues. Yet again, he rose above, earning his place as a voice of reason and strength within the APC, known for his eloquence, intellect, and firm grasp of national issues.

Today, as Nigeria’s Vice President, Shettima faces yet another challenge—this time from within. A coordinated campaign has emerged, allegedly pushed by political actors with ambitions for 2027, aiming to sow discord between him and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Fake news merchants have been deployed to twist narratives and fabricate rifts. But the facts remain stronger than fiction.

President Tinubu’s trust in Shettima runs deeper than many understand. Tinubu chose Shettima as his running mate—without pressure, without external consultation, and certainly without seeking endorsement from even the most powerful figures like former President Muhammadu Buhari. His decision was based on conviction, not compromise.

Each time the media speculates on a rift, President Tinubu swiftly dispels it, reiterating his confidence and respect for Shettima. This alliance is built on shared vision and mutual respect, not convenience.

Kashim Shettima has emerged stronger, wiser, and more determined through every fire he has walked. History shows us that adversity sharpens his focus. This latest round of animosity, though loud, is fleeting. Just like before, he will rise—not only to prove his critics wrong, but to reaffirm the values of loyalty, resilience, and visionary leadership.

The noise will fade in the end, but Shettima’s legacy—like his rise—will endure.

Lawan Bukar Maigana is an award-winning journalist and humanitarian who can be reached at: lawanbukarmaigana@gmail.com.

Abdulhamid Abdullahi Aliyu

With a single stroke, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has upended Nigeria’s constitutional order, suspending Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and the state legislature under the guise of a state of emergency.

This unprecedented and legally questionable move raises urgent questions: Has Nigeria’s democracy just been hijacked? If a sitting president can summarily remove elected state officials without due process, what stops Abuja from toppling any governor who falls out of favor?

The political crisis in Rivers has been simmering for months, with intense factional battles within the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) leading to threats of impeachment against the governor. But was the situation truly dire enough to warrant a presidential intervention of this magnitude?

Under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, a state of emergency can only be declared in cases of war, imminent danger of invasion, total breakdown of public order, or natural disasters. Even then, such a declaration requires National Assembly approval.

More importantly, the Constitution does not grant the President the power to suspend a sitting governor, deputy governor, or members of the state legislature.

By single-handedly ousting a duly elected state government and replacing it with a military figure, Tinubu has overstepped his constitutional bounds, effectively staging what many legal experts are calling a “constitutional coup.”

If this move is allowed to stand, it raises a troubling question: which state is next? Today, it is Rivers; tomorrow, it could be any other state where the President or ruling party faces political opposition. The implications are chilling—no governor, regardless of electoral mandate, would be safe from federal interference.

Would this have happened in Lagos or Kano? Would a northern state be subjected to such federal strong-arming? The answer is clear. Rivers, an oil-rich and politically volatile state, is an attractive target.

But what happens when this dangerous game of executive overreach extends beyond Rivers? If Tinubu can remove Fubara this easily, then Nigeria’s entire federal structure is under threat.

Beyond the political chaos, a more pressing question emerges: Is this really about governance, or is it about controlling Rivers’ oil wealth? History has shown the federal government’s keen interest in oil-producing states—from the militarization of the Niger Delta under past administrations to the strategic placement of federal loyalists in key oil-rich states.

The pattern is all too familiar. Could this move be less about political stability and more about tightening Abuja’s grip on Rivers’ vast economic resources?

With the Constitution clearly violated, all eyes now turn to the judiciary. Will the Supreme Court rise to the occasion and declare this move unconstitutional? Or will the courts bow to political pressure, allowing a dangerous precedent to take root?

The judiciary must recognize that this is not just about Rivers—it is about safeguarding Nigeria’s fragile democracy from the creeping shadows of authoritarianism. If this unconstitutional takeover is not reversed, no state governor in Nigeria will ever govern with full confidence in their electoral mandate again.

Since the return to civil rule in 1999, Governor Siminalayi Fubara is now the third sitting governor to be suspended by a Nigerian President under a democratic setting. In 2004, former President Olusegun Obasanjo suspended Plateau State Governor Joshua Dariye and the State Assembly over ethno-religious violence in Jos and other parts of the state, appointing Maj. Gen. Chris Alli (rtd.) to take charge.

Two years later, Obasanjo removed Ekiti State Governor Ayo Fayose and his deputy over political crises and impeachment controversies, installing Brig. Gen. Tunji Olurin (rtd.) as the new head of the state.

In 2013, President Goodluck Jonathan declared a state of emergency in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa States in response to Boko Haram’s escalating insurgency. However, unlike his predecessors, Jonathan did not suspend the sitting governors; instead, he allowed state governments to continue operating alongside increased federal military intervention.

Now, in 2025, Tinubu has declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, citing political crisis and governance breakdown. But his move goes even further—suspending Governor Fubara, his deputy, and all members of the House of Assembly for six months.

While past interventions were carried out under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, the legality and necessity of removing elected officials have always been controversial. The Constitution outlines a clear procedure for declaring a state of emergency: the President must issue a proclamation, publish it in the official Gazette, and submit it to the National Assembly for approval.

Yet, in Rivers, Tinubu has acted unilaterally, preempting legislative approval and exceeding constitutional limits by removing elected officials.

As these events unfold, one thing is certain—2027 is shaping up to be a defining moment for Nigeria’s democracy. Will the courts uphold the rule of law, or will this be remembered as the moment Nigeria’s democracy took a dangerous turn?

The Nigerian people, civil society, and democratic institutions must resist this unconstitutional move by all legitimate means. If left unchecked, this will mark the moment when the line between democracy and dictatorship in Nigeria blurred beyond recognition.

Abdulhamid Abdullahi Aliyu- an NYSC serving corps member, writes from Center for Crisis Communication (CCC) in Abuja.

By Blaise Emeka Okpara

If recent events in Nigeria’s body politic are anything to go by, then one would be right to conclude that our democracy is headed for the rocks. At no time in our nation’s history has such a calamity of monumental proportions befallen us! What is worse, we are witnessing for the first time an unholy alliance between the three arms of government. What this portends is that the people, who should be the primary concern of governance, are now being relegated to the background.

There is great danger, and from the look of things, it might not get better anytime soon. The current reality in Nigeria, where both the legislature and judiciary have collapsed their structures into that of the executive, has created an atmosphere of distrust and hopelessness among Nigerians. There is a disconnect between the government and the people. This dichotomy exists due to the nonchalance associated with the current crop of political leaders.

Of great concern is the recent declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, which saw the suspension of a duly elected governor and the appointment of a sole administrator. While it is undeniable that the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, in Section 305, bestows upon the President the power to declare a state of emergency, it does not grant him the power to remove an elected governor. 

More disheartening was the speedy ratification by the Senate through a voice vote. How, on earth, did the Senate determine a two-thirds majority through a voice vote? These and many other questions continue to bug the discerning.

As if that were not enough, the Attorney General of the federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi SAN, was vociferous  in his outburst, threatening that the President would not hesitate to declare more states of emergency in any state if it becomes necessary. In a democracy! Such unguarded utterances should not be encouraged because they go against the principles of democracy. 

Moreover, from all indications,it seems that the days of healthy debates in the national assembly are gone. Today, Nigeria has a  national assembly that functions as an extension of the executive. One wonders what might become of our democracy if President Ahmed Tinubu decides  to prolong his stay in office beyond the constitutionally required terms. With the antecedents of this current national assembly, one might conclude that it is a done deal. 

Sadly, the judiciary is not exempt. At a time when Nigerians look to the judiciary as the bastion of democracy, the institution has been so undermined that it no longer inspires confidence among the populace. Brazen disregard for justice, driven by monetary inducement, has become the norm. This is even more evident in the audacity with which Nigerian politicians now instruct aggrieved individuals to go to court. 

Outcomes of judicial processes can easily be predicted by simply observing those involved. When a nation has a judiciary that takes orders from the executives, where then lies the hope for the common man? One can only find judges hobnobbing with politicians in a compromised judiciary.  

The return to constitutional democracy was met with great expectations and optimism from Nigerians after years of military rule. However, more than two decades later, it seems Nigeria is gradually drifting towards a darker era where only a privileged few individuals manage the affairs with little or no regard for the people.

There is a pervasive feeling of helplessness among Nigerians that those in positions of authority can do and get away with anything. As scary and unsavory as this may sound, it is the truth, given recent occurrences. It reeks of a lack of empathy for a President to declare the removal of the subsidy on the day of his inauguration without considering the impact on the people. To this day, Nigerians are still reeling from the effects of that hasty decision. Needless to say,millions of Nigerians were plunged into poverty as a result. 

Unlike in 2013, when the then-President removed the fuel subsidy and Nigerians had the freedom and courage to take to the streets, the reverse is now true. In fact, during the last “Hunger protest,” most protesters were teargassed by the police, and some were arrested. The criminalization of protests in Nigeria by the current administration has instilled fear among citizens. When citizens are frightened by the government of the day, it’s not a democracy.

The usual refrain by the police that protests would be hijacked is purely a calculated attempt to suppress dissenting voices. This confrontational approach to peaceful protesters is undemocratic because it contradicts citizens’ rights to freedom of expression as enshrined in section 39 of the 1999 constitution (as amended). If citizens’ rights to protest are being trampled upon, then it is correct to conclude that we are gradually sliding back to the despotic years of the military, where speaking truth to power was considered an act of bravery. 

Conclusively, most of those in positions of authority today, like the sitting President, often wax lyrical about their heroics during the NADECO days of the military. President Tinubu was among the major organizers of the “occupy Nigeria” protests, which saw his party, the All Progressive Congress(APC), come to power. If protest was fashionable then,why is it not now? 

Democracy thrives on fundamental principles such as the separation of powers among the three branches of government to ensure checks and balances, fundamental human rights, the rule of law, popular participation, and, most importantly, legitimacy. 

Only the people can bestow this legitimacy through periodic elections. When these core principles are abused,democracy is in danger. Political office holders need to engage in introspection to curtail their high-handedness and save our democracy from imminent collapse. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

Blaise Emeka Okpara writes from Abuja and can be reached at: emyokparaoo1@gmail.com.

By Uzair Adam 

The New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) in Kano State has dismissed rumours suggesting that its 2023 presidential candidate, Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, is planning to defect to the All Progressives Congress (APC).

The state party chairman, Hashimu Dungurawa, made this known while reacting to growing speculation surrounding Kwankwaso’s alleged defection.

Dungurawa stressed that neither Kwankwaso nor the NNPP had any intention of joining the APC, which he described as a party that has failed Nigerians.

“Definitely, we (NNPP) don’t have that interest or intention. We see them (APC) as enemies of democracy. Look at where they’ve led the country today. People are only waiting for the day of the election to teach them a lesson,” Dungurawa stated.

He further noted the steady decline in the APC’s electoral support, saying, “In 2015, they had almost 20 million votes. In 2019, they got 16 million, and in 2023, it dropped to 8 million votes.”

This comes after the Chairman of the APC in Kano State, Abdullahi Abbas, welcomed the idea of Kwankwaso joining the APC but stated that it would be under certain conditions.

By Murtala Sani

The challenge faced by Comrade Aminu Abdussalam Gwarzo during 2023 gubernatorial election was big.

The opponents that rose against him included the former Deputy Governor of Kano State who was also the first APC Chairman of the State, Eng. Abdullahi Tijjani Muhammad Gwarzo, the grassroot politician that adopted Jehovah Witness-like door to door political campaign in order to win against the Comrade during the election.

Three powerful incumbent commissioners from different powerful wards waged war against the Comrade. Commissioner of Environment who is also a good friend of Ganduje’s daughter, Dr.Kabiru Ibrahim Getso, used his power to ensure the downfall of the Comrade during the election. Commissioner of Youths and Sports, Kabiru Ado Lakwaya, who was also the President of NYCN Kano State Chapter, mobilized his aluta boys to articulate APC agenda before the election just to bring down the Comrade. Commissioner of Budget and Planning, Alhaji Ibrahim Dan’azumi Gwarzo, a master strategist, used his old political wisdom and wits in fighting the Comrade during the election.

Three Managing Directors were not left behind in hacking the Comrade with their political axes:

1) MD. REMASSAB, Abdullahi Mu’azu (Babangandu) who is now the member representing Gwarzo/Kabo at the Federal House of Representatives, the APC moniepoint, made sure that money was circulating all over Gwarzo local government to pin down the Comrade during the election.

2) MD. WRECA, Mallam Munir Ahmad, decided to persuade voters with his Ibrahim Shekarau’s type of style of politics by using spiritual quotations to persuade voters to turn down the Comrade during the election.

3) MD. Zoo, Alhaji Sa’idu Gwadabe, used his political connections to smash down the Comrade during the election.

Former member Kano State House of Assembly representing Gwarzo Constituency, Hon. Sa’idu Kutama was conspiring against the Comrade during the election. Former as well as current member representing Gwarzo Constituency at Kano State House of Assembly, Hon. Haruna Kayyu, was busy castigating the Comrade during the election.

The Chairman of Gwarzo Local Government, Eng.Bashir Kutama, engineered all the ten elected councillors and the surpervisory councillors along with his appointed special advisers from various wards of Gwarzo Local Government to tear apart the Comrade during the election.

On the other hand, the four times Senator representing Kano North Constituency in the Senates, Senator Bello Hayatu Gwarzo who manned the seat of Chief of Whip in the Senate,was mercilessly whipping the Comrade with his PDP-APC laced political party to bend down the Comrade during the election.

From the outside, Murtala Sule Garo, the influencial Commissioner of Local Government Affairs and Deputy Gubernatorial candidate of Kano State was throwing political bombs on the Comrade through his political soldiers during the election in order to crush down the Comrade during the election.

Again, the two times Senator representing Kano North Constituency as well as the present Deputy Senate President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Senator Barau Jibril, was pouring palliatives to the electorates in order to dig a political grave for the Comrade during the election.

Still, his opponents had to add with tearing votes and smashing polling boxes to see his end during the election. At that moment, the highest political figure behind the Comrade was two times former member representing Gwarzo Constituency at Kano State House of Assembly, Hon.Rabi’u Saleh.

Yet, like a legendary Dramendra of the Bollywood, the Comrade dispersed all of them to become legally elected Deputy Governor of Kano State along with Eng.Abba Kabir Yusuf as the elected Governor of Kano State.

Comrade Gwarzo is really Gwarzo.

Murtala Sani writes from Gwarzo, Kano State.

By Zayyad I. Muhammad

As politicking for the 2027 elections gradually gains momentum, both new and familiar scenarios will inevitably emerge. Nigeria’s political landscape is dynamic and often shaped by geopolitical factors, and 2027 will be no exception.

The truth is, despite its internal wranglings and historical baggage, any coalition that does not have the PDP as its central pillar is unlikely to achieve the kind of national spread required to win a presidential election in Nigeria. The PDP, with its extensive grassroots network and long-standing presence across all six geopolitical zones, remains the only opposition party with a truly nationwide structure, even if its influence has somewhat waned in recent years.

Peter Obi and Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, notable third-force figures from the 2023 elections, lack enthusiasm for any clearly defined coalition. Obi appears ready to pursue the presidency again, but the conditions that fueled his surprising 2023 performance- particularly the support from urban youth and disenchanted Christian voters— have significantly waned. This support was initially driven by fear over Tinubu’s Muslim-Muslim ticket, which caused concerns among Christians. Today, that fear has faded, and ironically, the Muslim-Muslim arrangement includes more Christian participation in government than anticipated.

Kwankwaso, on the other hand, appears to have adopted a more pragmatic, localised approach- ‘ state capture. Kwankwaso’s posture suggests a strategy of quiet autonomy: “I have Kano; let me control it. I won’t interfere with you, and don’t interfere with me.” This ‘state capture’ mentality may give him relevance at the regional level but severely limits his national appeal.

President Tinubu, meanwhile, has carelessly  or perhaps inadvertently squandered the political capital that the APC enjoyed in the North from 2015 to 2023. During that period, the APC could count on overwhelming support from northern voters , often to the extent that votes from a single state could nearly cancel out those from entire geopolitical zones elsewhere. That dominance was largely tied to a geopolitical strongholds strategy . Tinubu’s failure to maintain and galvanize this strategy will eat up the APC’s traditional votes in the North, which are very key for the APC’s return to a second term.

Furthermore, Tinubu has, whether knowingly or not, revitalised the dormant CPC bloc — a faction of the APC that once represented the ideological and political base of Buhari’s loyalists. Now, with the central leadership perceived as disconnected from northern interests, the CPC bloc sees an opportunity to reassert itself. In regions like the Northwest, particularly, this could lead to a realignment of loyalties, with Tinubu’s influence weakening in favor of those viewed as more authentically representing northern interests. 

Nepotism is nepotism. While Buhari’s nepotism was largely regional and driven by northern priorities, Tinubu’s appears more ethnic and focused on Lagos, which could prove politically costly if not urgently recalibrated. That said, Tinubu still has time and political tools to course-correct before 2027, if he chooses to use them wisely.

The current coalition promoters, however, appear to be relying on an outdated strategy. The 2015-style bandwagon movement, built around the idea of ‘change,’ is unlikely to resonate with voters in 2027. Buhari’s eight-year presidency has left a mixed legacy, with many citizens feeling disillusioned by the unmet expectations. The old formula simply won’t work again.

In 2027, two key elements will determine electoral success, not only at the center but also in the states: substantial resources, both financial and structural , and science. The days when charisma and rhetoric alone could deliver victory are over. Any political group serious about winning must adopt a data-driven strategy. This entails conducting thorough research into voter behavior, turnout patterns, demographic shifts, and regional voting strengths. 

It also requires understanding the psychology of the electorate, particularly among young voters, who now constitute a decisive segment. Apolitical political scientists, data analysts, and behavioural experts will play a more vital role than ever before. Without this approach, even the best-funded campaign could fall flat.

Finally, it is important to accept that the coalition model of 2015 and the voting behavior of 2023 are not likely to repeat themselves. Nigeria’s political terrain has evolved, so to speak . As of today , although tomorrow is uncertain, the three major blocs heading into the 2027 elections appear to be Tinubu’s APC, the PDP, and the rest . It is shaping up to be a near-zero-sum game. 

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

By Bilyamin Abdulmumin, PhD

When the PDP began its first tenure in 1999, there was a level of humility and fairness. But it was in their second tenure that their invincibility began to take shape.

As a former military Head of State, Olusegun Obasanjo did not help matters. For the second time in Nigeria’s history, he declared a state of emergency in Ekiti and Plateau and threatened several other states. During this period, the legislature was allegedly weaponized for political control, and allegations extended even to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), a respected anti-graft agency. 

Arguably, the PDP reached its zenith in 2007 and became so confident that it could “do and undo. ” The opposition could no longer hold any chance; instead, they covertly or overtly carried out the bidding of the powerful PDP. This exuberance and excesses of the then-ruling party culminated in a ditch for democracy: reports indicated that the 2007 presidential election results were declared while the collation was still ongoing. 

In 2011, Goodluck Jonathan’s administration continued its escapade. Allegations of corruption and mismanagement ran rampant, and the PDP became a haven for anyone singing its praises. This perception was palpable, and the public echoed that anything labelled ‘dubious’ came from the party. 

Complacency eventually led them to boldly declare that the party would remain in power for sixty years. Instead of sixty, the PDP barely added another six years. Even the former party chairman, who initiated the sixty-year maxim, considered leaving the party in 2015. 

Never mind the masses’ outrage, founding fathers decrying maltreatment, and bigwigs, including governors, decamping to the opposition. PDP could not see the handwriting; they thought it would be normal. 

The death of the PDP would be slow, with several deep cuts. One of them was shunning them by decamping opposition. Shehu Sani, Nasir El-Rufa’i, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, and Peter Obi should all naturally have considered the PDP as an alternative. 

Another blow to the slowly fading party is an internal crisis. One crisis after another continues to shake the once-indomitable party, providing those looking to defect a compelling reason to change sides. 

Perhaps the deepest cut was Nyesom Wike’s presence, who actively undermined the party from within. As Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Wike not only revoked the PDP land title of the new secretariat but allegedly facilitated a Supreme Court victory for his ally, Mr Samuel Anyanwu, against the current party secretary.

History is replete with the downfall of the mighties. Leaders, nations, and brands often reach a status where they seem invincible, only to succumb to the very excesses that caused their rise.

By Usman Abdullahi Koli

The grandeur of Kano’s emirate is not merely an inheritance of a throne but the custodianship of a deep-rooted history, culture, and tradition that represents the very soul of African heritage. From the era of Bagauda to the reign of Ado Bayero, the emirate has stood as a symbol of resilience, dignity, and continuity. 

Today, as the emirship tussle continues, it presents a defining moment not just for those directly involved but for the entire Kano people, whose unity and stability rest upon the wisdom of their leaders. It is a moment that demands measured actions, guided by history and the sacrifices of great monarchs who prioritised the collective good over personal ambitions.

The Kano Emirate is no stranger to succession disputes; however, history has shown that wise leaders have navigated such crises with patience, foresight, and a commitment to preserving the integrity of the institution. From the reign of Emir Muhammadu Sanusi I to that of Ado Bayero, the emirate has undergone significant transitions- some peaceful, others contentious- but ultimately resolved with a sense of responsibility toward the larger interest of Kano.

Today, we see echoes of the past in the contest between Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II and Emir Aminu Ado Bayero. While the legal and political dimensions of the crisis continue to unfold, the moral weight on those involved is immense. The key question remains: Will the dignity, harmony, and prestige of Kano take precedence over personal interests, or will history remember this episode as a moment of avoidable discord?

History is replete with examples of monarchs who faced displacement yet responded with wisdom, ensuring that their thrones remained symbols of honour rather than sources of division. In 1936, King Edward VIII of Britain abdicated the throne out of personal conviction, avoiding a constitutional crisis. 

More recently, King Juan Carlos of Spain voluntarily stepped aside to preserve national unity and dignity. Within Africa, deposed monarchs have often demonstrated restraint, placing the peace of their people above personal grievances.

A particularly relevant example is Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II, who, despite the political implications of his removal in 2020, did not rally his supporters to contest the decision. Instead, he accepted his fate with remarkable composure, trusting in destiny and the historical cycle that governs leadership.

Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf is enormously responsible for ensuring that his administration’s actions do not fuel unnecessary tensions in Kano. While he holds constitutional authority over traditional institutions, wisdom dictates that such decisions be made with a far-reaching vision that safeguards Kano’s unity, stability, and the sanctity of its traditions. Political decisions should not be allowed to erode the revered position of the emirate.

To Emir Aminu Ado Bayero, this moment calls for deep introspection on the true essence of leadership. His revered father, Emir Ado Bayero, was an emblem of peace, patience, and sagacity. The respect he commanded was not merely because he sat on the throne but because of his ability to navigate crises with wisdom. Now, his son faces a historic test: will he allow personal ambition to override Kano’s peace, or will he embrace the noble path of sacrifice? The decisions he makes today will shape how history remembers him.

To Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II, his reinstatement is a return to power and an opportunity to lead with renewed wisdom and vision. His expectations are immense—not for vengeance or retribution, but for reconciliation and statesmanship. The people of Kano look up to him to use his vast experience, intellect, and leadership to heal divisions, restore trust, and solidify the emirate as a pillar of stability.

Kano is more than a city; it symbolises Africa’s resilience, culture, and civilization. The emirate embodies centuries of tradition that must not be tarnished by personal conflicts. The world is watching, and history is recording. The real question is not who occupies the throne today, but how that throne is preserved for generations to come.

It is crucial for external influences, particularly those in Abuja, to respect the Kano State Government’s decision. The constitution recognizes states as custodians of their emirates, and any interference from outside forces risks escalating tensions rather than resolving them. Political insinuators should avoid fueling discord and instead honour the autonomy of Kano’s leadership.

Now, the great tradition of the Sallah Durbar, which both factions claim to organise, must not become a battleground for supremacy. The grand procession, deeply embedded in Kano’s cultural and Islamic identity, is meant to unite, not divide. It should not be reduced to a contest of power. Both sides must recognize that personal ambitions should never overshadow the collective peace of Kano. True leadership is tested not in times of comfort, but in moments of crisis, and the world is watching to see whether wisdom or ego will prevail.

Great monarchs are remembered not for how fiercely they fought to retain power, but for how wisely they managed transitions, prioritized peace, and left behind legacies of honor. The lessons of Kano’s past emirs—from Bagauda to Ado Bayero—should serve as a guide for present leaders. These revered figures ruled with dignity, wisdom, and a profound sense of duty to their people.

Those who occupy the throne today must consider: Will they be remembered for upholding this legacy or for diminishing it?

May wisdom prevail over pride, and may Kano remain the fortress of culture, tradition, and unity it has always been.

Usman Abdullahi Koli wrote via mernoukoli@gmail.com.

By Anwar Usman 

The Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, hosted suspended Rivers state house of assembly lawmakers in the United Kingdom on Monday.

The Senior Special Assistant to the Minister on Public Communications and Social Media, Lere Olayinka, posted on X.com on Tuesday that the lawmakers, who are in the UK for “legislative capacity building,” were hosted to a dinner by the minister.

He stated that “Yesterday, the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, hosted Rivers State House of Assembly members who are in the United Kingdom for Legislative Capacity Building, to a dinner.

Reports have it that on Sunday, the suspended Rivers lawmakers, led by the Speaker, Martins Amaewhule, departed Nigeria for a tour in the United Kingdom.

Amaewhule was said to have declared open the 10th Rivers Assembly Legislative Tour of the United Kingdom on Friday.

He emphasized that the legislative tour would allow the House to learn new things outside Nigeria, which would improve members’ capacity for the tasks ahead.

On March 18th, President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State and suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Deputy Governor Prof Ngozi Odu, and members of the state House of Assembly.