APC

By Abdullahi Mukhtar Algasgaini

The All Progressives Congress (APC) has officially released the full list of its National Executive Committee members, with Prof. Nentawe Goshwe Yilwatda confirmed as the National Chairman. The detailed roster, which outlines the party’s leadership structure across various offices, was made public in a recent announcement.

Yilwatda heads a comprehensive team of national officers, supported by Ali Bukar Dalori as Deputy National Chairman (North) and Dr. Benjamin Obi Nwoye as Deputy National Chairman (South). Senator Surajudeen Ajibola Basiru serves as the National Secretary, while Prof. AbdulKarim Abubakar Kana takes on the role of Deputy National Secretary.

The list also includes key appointments across critical portfolios: Murtala Aliyu Kankia as National Legal Adviser, Uguru Mathew Ofoke as National Treasurer, and Amb. Haruna Ginsau as National Financial Secretary. Muhammad Sulaiman Argunu OFR was named National Organising Secretary, while Donatus Enyinnah Nwankpa was appointed National Welfare Secretary.

Felix Morka will continue as National Publicity Secretary, with Sen. Abubakar Maikafi as National Auditor. The party’s demographic representation is led by Dr. Mary A. Idele (National Women Leader), Dayo Isreal Abdulai (National Youth Leader), and Aare Durotolu Oyebode Bankole as National Leader for Persons with Disabilities.

The party also announced deputies for several positions, including Hamman Adamu Ali Kumoo (Deputy National Financial Secretary), Barr. Emeka Okafor (Deputy National Organising Secretary), and Zainab Abubakar Ibrahim (Deputy National Women Leader). Other deputy roles were filled by Hon. Meseko Durosinni Josiah (Publicity), Dr. Christopher Michael Akpan (Welfare), Mr. Olugbenga Olayemi (Auditor), Barr. Ibrahim Salawu (Legal Adviser), Engr. Ben Akak (Treasurer), and Jamaludeen Kabiru (Youth Leader).

Rounding out the executive committee are six National Ex-officio members representing the geopolitical zones: Dr. Opawoye Oluwatoyin Bunmi (North Central), Adamu Jallah (North East), KanoMuhammed Jamu Yusuf (North West), Hon. Ikechukwu Umeh (South East), Mr. Francis Kolokolo (South South), and Hon. Bunmi Orinowo (South West).

The announcement underscores the party’s efforts to solidify its leadership structure ahead of upcoming political activities.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, on Thursday received delegates of the All Progressives Congress (APC) from Rivers State at his residence in Abuja.

Those present at the meeting included the National Vice Chairman (South-South), Victor Giadom, who recently retained his position. Lawmakers from the National Assembly and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly also attended the gathering. Other party leaders from the state were equally present.

The meeting followed the APC South-South Zonal Congress held in Asaba, Delta State, a few days earlier.

At the congress, Giadom emerged again as the National Vice Chairman (South-South), while Samuel Nwanosike was elected as the South-South Zonal Publicity Secretary.

The gathering is seen as part of ongoing consultations within the party ahead of its national convention.

By Ibrahim Yunusa 

Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf has relieved Alhaji Shehu Wada Sagagi of his duties as Kano State Commissioner for Investment, Commerce and Industry with immediate effect.

 The decision was announced in a statement issued on Thursday by the governor’s spokesperson, Sunusi Bature Dawakin Tofa.

According to the statement, Sagagi has been directed to hand over the ministry’s affairs to the Director of Commerce without delay.

 The move forms part of what the government described as an ongoing strategic realignment aimed at strengthening administrative efficiency and repositioning the state for sustainable growth.

Governor Yusuf expressed appreciation for Sagagi’s contributions during his tenure, particularly in the areas of politics, religion, and support for small and medium enterprises. 

He wished the former commissioner success in his future endeavours and reaffirmed his administration’s commitment to effective service delivery and good governance in Kano State.

This development comes amid ongoing suspicions that some key figures are undermining and backbiting the governor following his split from his former political godfather, Rabi’u Musa Kwankwaso.

Reports also indicate growing confusion within the cabinet and among several appointees in government parastatals, as uncertainty persists over loyalties, specifically on who remains aligned with the governor and who is still loyal to his former mentor.

By Abdulhamid Abdullahi Aliyu

A Hausa proverb warns that you cannot run at full speed while scratching an itch. The saying captures, with striking simplicity, the dilemma now surrounding Sheikh Isa Ali Pantami as conversations about his political ambitions gain momentum.

Public life demands clarity of role and consistency of purpose. When an individual seeks to occupy two morally and structurally conflicting spaces simultaneously, momentum is lost, and credibility is strained. This is the core tension in Pantami’s current trajectory: the attempt to remain a preacher with clerical authority while simultaneously stepping into partisan politics.

The problem is not ambition itself. It is role conflict. Clerical authority depends on moral certainty and spiritual distance from power, while politics thrives on negotiation, compromise, and moral ambiguity. Attempting to inhabit both worlds simultaneously risks weakening the integrity of each.

This tension becomes even more consequential in a plural society like Nigeria, where religion carries deep emotional authority and political power must remain anchored in constitutional legitimacy. Once religious influence is injected into partisan competition, power risks acquiring a sacred character. Political disagreement can then be reframed, subtly or overtly, as moral failure or spiritual deviation rather than a contest of ideas and interests.

Some have argued, including respected commentators like Jaafar Jaafar, that religious clerics should avoid politics altogether because political space is inherently compromised by bargaining, corruption and ethical trade-offs. Others counter with a seemingly reasonable question: if the aim is to sanitise politics, why not allow upright clerics like Pantami to participate?

That question, however, misunderstands the core concern. The issue is not whether a cleric is personally virtuous. It is about the separation of religion and the state. Democracy relies on pluralism, persuasion and accountability. When religious authority enters partisan politics, votes may be influenced not by policy debate, but by guilt, fear, or claims of divine sanction. That is a dangerous precedent in any diverse society.

The concern deepens when the individual seeking political office has, in the past, described politics itself as immoral or ungodly. Such a record invites legitimate questions of coherence. Has politics suddenly become virtuous, or has it merely become useful? Citizens are entitled to ask not out of prejudice, but out of democratic caution.

More troubling still are historical associations with ideological currents that have openly viewed democratic participation not as a means of strengthening institutions, but as a strategy to hollow them out from within — the well-known shiga daga ciki a gyara argument. In societies that have suffered from extremism and institutional fragility, such histories cannot be brushed aside or dismissed as irrelevant.

None of this is about excluding religion from public life. Faith has always shaped values, ethics and social responsibility in Nigeria. But there is a difference between moral inspiration and political authority. When religion becomes a substitute for constitutional legitimacy, the democratic project itself is weakened.

Politics, by its nature, is a flawed human enterprise. It requires compromise, negotiation and accountability to citizens, not to spiritual hierarchies. Clerical authority, on the other hand, rests on moral clarity and trust. Mixing the two without a clear break risks eroding both.

If Professor Pantami intends to pursue politics, the burden before him is not merely electoral. It is moral and institutional. He must offer clarity, openly reckon with past positions, and demonstrate consistency over time. Nigerians are not asking for perfection. They are asking for coherence.

In the end, democracy survives not on sacred claims, but on transparent choices, accountable leadership and the acceptance that political authority derives from citizens, not sanctity. That distinction must remain clear — for the sake of both faith and the republic.

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

Nigeria’s political arena has never been short of strong personalities, but few figures have remained as consistently relevant as Nasir El-Rufai. Love him or dislike him, it is difficult to ignore the fact that he has been one of the most consequential actors in Nigeria’s political journey since the return to civil rule in 1999. His recent confrontation with security authorities and the attempt to detain him without clear evidence speak less about law enforcement and more about the anxiety within the ruling establishment.

To understand the current political tension, one must first understand El-Rufai’s place in the system. From his early role in the administration of Olusegun Obasanjo to his strategic alignment in the political transitions that produced Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, Goodluck Jonathan, and later Muhammadu Buhari, El-Rufai has repeatedly demonstrated a rare understanding of how power works in Nigeria. Few politicians can claim to have operated so close to multiple presidencies across different political eras.

His experience is not accidental. As a former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory and later governor of Kaduna State, El-Rufai built a reputation for being both strategic and outspoken. That combination has earned him loyal supporters and fierce critics. Yet even his opponents concede that he understands the inner workings of Nigerian politics better than most of his contemporaries.

What makes the present situation intriguing is the reaction of the current government under President Bola Tinubu. Political watchers note that the administration appears unusually sensitive to El-Rufai’s moves and statements. The attempted arrest at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport in Abuja, which was resisted by supporters who had gathered to welcome him, has only deepened public suspicion that political motivations may be at play.

In any democratic society, the rule of law demands that allegations be backed by evidence. Detaining a prominent political figure without a clear justification risks sending the wrong message to the public. It creates the impression that state institutions are being deployed as political tools rather than impartial guardians of justice. Such actions can weaken public confidence in democracy at a time when many Nigerians are already questioning the direction of the country’s governance.

Beyond the immediate controversy, El-Rufai’s political relevance lies in his networks and influence. In Northern Nigeria, he maintains relationships with traditional leaders, religious authorities, and political elites. His connections with groups such as the Arewa Consultative Forum and his standing among many northern political actors make him a figure whose voice carries weight in national conversations.

This is also why his reported involvement in strengthening the African Democratic Congress has attracted attention. In a political environment where alliances and coalitions often determine electoral outcomes, any figure capable of mobilising political forces across regions automatically becomes a strategic concern for those in power.

El-Rufai himself has long argued that political dominance in Nigeria can be challenged through direct engagement with voters. During a public lecture in Lagos years ago, he pointed out that millions of registered voters often stay away from the polls. His argument was simple. If a politician can mobilise even a fraction of those disengaged citizens, entrenched political structures can be defeated. That message resonates strongly in today’s political climate.

The lesson from his remarks is that Nigerian democracy still holds untapped potential. Electoral participation remains one of the most powerful tools available to citizens. When politicians connect directly with voters rather than relying solely on elite political arrangements, the balance of power can shift dramatically.

The current political drama surrounding El-Rufai, therefore, reflects a deeper struggle within Nigeria’s political system. It is not merely about one individual. It is about the anxiety that emerges whenever established power structures sense the rise of alternative political forces.

Whether one agrees with his politics or not, attempting to silence a figure like El-Rufai through intimidation or questionable legal action does not strengthen democracy. If anything, it elevates his profile and reinforces the perception that he represents a genuine challenge to the status quo.

Nigeria’s democracy should be strong enough to accommodate dissent, criticism, and competition. The country has endured decades of political turbulence and should have learned by now that suppressing political voices rarely solves problems. Open contestation, debate, and accountability are the true pillars of democratic progress.

As the political landscape gradually shifts toward the next electoral cycle, figures like Nasir El-Rufai will continue to shape conversations about leadership, power, and the future of governance in Nigeria. The real question is not whether he will remain relevant. The real question is how Nigeria’s political system will respond to voices that challenge the existing order.

If democracy means anything, it must allow strong political actors to participate freely without fear of intimidation. The strength of a nation’s democracy is measured not by how it treats its friends, but by how it treats its critics.

Interesting time ahead.

Muhammad Umar Shehu wrote from Gombe and can be reached via umarmuhammadshehu2@gmail.com.

The recent exchange between Daniel Bwala and Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera’s Head to Head programme has sparked widespread debate across Nigeria’s political and media space. The interview, which quickly went viral on social media, has been interpreted by many observers as a revealing moment at the intersection of political communication, accountability, and international journalistic standards.

Appearances on global platforms such as Al Jazeera are rarely routine engagements. Programmes like Head to Head are built on a tradition of rigorous questioning, where political figures are expected to defend their arguments under intense scrutiny. For journalists such as Hasan, whose interviewing style is known for its directness, the objective is not merely to host a conversation but to interrogate claims with evidence, previous statements, and policy records.

It is within this context that Bwala’s performance, a media aide to Bola Ahmed Tinubu, has attracted considerable commentary. Some analysts argue that the controversy surrounding the interview reflects a broader challenge faced by many political spokespersons when transitioning from domestic media environments to global broadcast platforms. International interviews of this nature often demand a high level of preparation, particularly when the subject has an extensive public record that can be referenced during questioning.

One of the most notable aspects of the interview involved the presentation of Bwala’s earlier criticisms of Tinubu during the period leading to the 2023 Nigerian presidential election. Before aligning with the current administration, Bwala had publicly expressed views that were sharply critical of the president and his political movement. During the interview, those earlier remarks were revisited and contrasted with his present role as a defender of the government’s policies.

In professional journalism, such lines of questioning are neither unusual nor inappropriate. Public figures frequently encounter questions about their previous positions, particularly when those positions appear to contradict their current stance. The purpose is not necessarily to embarrass the interviewee, but to test the consistency and credibility of their arguments.

Following the broadcast, Bwala reportedly stated in subsequent media interviews that he felt “ambushed,” suggesting he had not anticipated extensive questioning about his past remarks on Tinubu. That explanation, however, has generated further discussion among media commentators. Critics maintain that any appearance on a programme known for its confrontational format should reasonably come with the expectation that past public statements may be scrutinised.

Beyond the immediate personalities involved, the episode highlights an important issue in Nigeria’s political communication culture. Many public officials are accustomed to interview formats within the local media environment, where questioning can sometimes be less adversarial and more conversational. While this approach may foster cordial interactions between journalists and political actors, it can also create a degree of unpreparedness when officials engage with international media institutions that operate under different professional expectations.

Global news networks often emphasise adversarial journalism as a way of ensuring accountability. Interviewers are expected to challenge power, confront inconsistencies and demand evidence for political claims. Within that framework, the intensity of the Hasan–Bwala exchange was largely consistent with established international broadcasting practices.

There is also a broader dimension to consider. When government representatives appear on international media platforms, their performance inevitably shapes perceptions of their country’s governance and political culture. Such appearances, therefore, carry implications that extend beyond individual reputations, touching on issues of national image and diplomatic communication.

Nevertheless, the controversy surrounding the interview also offers a useful moment for reflection. Nigeria’s democratic system benefits from open engagement with the media, both domestically and internationally. In an era where information circulates instantly across borders, political communicators must recognise that past statements remain accessible and can resurface at any moment.

Ultimately, the Bwala–Hasan interview serves as a reminder of an enduring reality in public life: political narratives are constantly subject to scrutiny. In the digital age, where every speech, interview or social media post becomes part of a permanent archive, consistency and preparation are essential tools for anyone representing government policy.

Whether one views the exchange as a difficult interview, a tactical misstep, or simply the normal workings of adversarial journalism, it reinforces the importance of accountability in democratic discourse. When political actors face rigorous questioning, the process may be uncomfortable, but it remains central to the role that journalism plays in holding power to account.

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

Governor Dauda Lawal of Zamfara State has officially left the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and joined the All Progressives Congress (APC).

The development was announced on Monday through a statement issued by the governor’s media aide, Nuhu Anka. He explained that the decision came after the governor held consultations with political leaders, elders and supporters across the state.

“The Government and PDP family of Zamfara State wish to formally inform the general public of an important political development following extensive consultations with stakeholders, political leaders, elders, and supporters across the state.

“After careful consideration, and in the overriding interest of stability, progress, and the sustainable development of Zamfara State, Dauda Lawal, the Executive Governor of Zamfara State, has decided to formally defect from the Peoples Democratic Party to the All Progressives Congress,” the statement read.

Anka said the governor’s move was largely influenced by the internal problems facing the PDP at both national and state levels.

“This decision was reached after wide consultations with political stakeholders and supporters, particularly in view of the prolonged internal crisis, leadership disagreements, and unresolved structural challenges within the PDP at both the national and state levels.

“These challenges have continued to create uncertainty and distractions that could hinder effective governance and the delivery of democratic dividends to the people of Zamfara State,” the statement added.

The governor’s spokesman also stated that Lawal remains focused on addressing security issues and promoting development in the North-West state.

Anka explained that the governor believed it was necessary to join a platform that offers better unity and stronger collaboration with the Federal Government.

He said the governor chose to “align with a political platform that provides greater unity, stability, and stronger cooperation with the Federal Government for the benefit of the people.”

The statement also revealed that the final decision followed a meeting held at the Government House in Gusau. The meeting involved senior government officials and key political stakeholders. It was coordinated by the Deputy Governor.

“The final deliberation leading to this historic decision was held at the Government House in Gusau under the coordination and leadership of the Deputy Governor, alongside senior government officials and key political stakeholders,” the statement said.

According to Anka, the governor also thanked members of the PDP for their support during his time in the party. However, he said the prevailing political situation made the change necessary.

“By joining the APC, the Governor reaffirmed his commitment to strengthening unity, improving security, accelerating development, and ensuring that Zamfara State benefits fully from stronger collaboration with the Federal Government,” it added.

Governor Lawal is among several governors expected to contest for re-election in the 2027 general elections.

His defection came shortly after a Court of Appeal ruling on Monday. The court upheld an earlier order that restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognising the outcome of the PDP national convention held in Ibadan.

With Lawal’s move, the number of APC governors in Nigeria has now risen to 31.

By Abdulhamid Abdullahi Aliyu

In Kano today, politics is no longer whispered in corridors; it is argued loudly in markets, mosques and on social media timelines. Since Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf’s reported decision to part ways with the NNPP, the city has become a theatre of competing loyalties, sharp sarcasm and deeper constitutional questions. Supporters have reduced complex political choices into street labels—Abba’s camp being teased as ’yan a ci dadi lafiya, while the Kwankwasiyya faithful wear wuya ba ta kisa as a badge of honour. Beneath the banter, however, lies a serious national issue: who truly owns a political mandate?

Governor Abba Yusuf did not emerge from a vacuum. His ascent to the Kano Government House was inseparable from the Kwankwasiyya political machinery, a movement painstakingly built by Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso over two decades. From red caps to ideological messaging, the movement transcended party platforms and became a political identity. In the 2023 elections, many voters did not merely vote for a party; they voted for Kwankwasiyya as a symbol of continuity, defiance and populist appeal.

Yet, Abba Yusuf is no ceremonial beneficiary. He contested, won, survived legal battles and now governs with all the constitutional powers vested in an elected governor. His mandate, in law, is personal. Once sworn in, no political godfather—however influential—can legally issue directives from outside the Government House. This is where the tension lies: the clash between moral ownership of political capital and constitutional authority of office.

Those derisively tagged ’yan aci dadi lafiya by opponents argue that governance is about pragmatism, access to power and delivering dividends to the people. From their perspective, a sitting governor must build alliances beyond sentiment, protect his administration and ensure stability. Politics, they insist, is not a monastic vow of hardship but a strategic exercise in survival and results.

On the other side stand the wuya bata ƙi sa faithful—Kwankwasiyya loyalists who believe political struggle must be endured to preserve ideology. To them, Abba Yusuf’s move is not strategy but betrayal. They see it as an attempt to reap the fruits of a movement while discarding its architect. In their view, suffering with the movement, even outside power, is preferable to comfort without loyalty.

This divide exposes a recurring Nigerian dilemma: the uneasy relationship between political movements and the individuals they propel into office. From Awolowo’s disciples to Aregbesola’s rupture with Tinubu, Nigerian politics is littered with fallouts between founders and beneficiaries. Kano’s current drama is simply the latest chapter.

Kwankwaso’s influence in Kano politics is undeniable. Beyond elections, he represents a moral compass for millions who see him as a symbol of resistance against elite dominance. His supporters’ anger is therefore not merely partisan; it is emotional and ideological. To them, Abba Yusuf’s political identity was inseparable from Kwankwaso’s shadow.

However, governance demands autonomy. A governor who appears perpetually tethered to an external authority risks administrative paralysis and legitimacy questions. Abba Yusuf’s defenders argue that Kano cannot be governed from outside its constitutional structures. They insist that the electorate voted not just for Kwankwaso’s endorsement but for Abba Yusuf’s promise to lead.

The real casualty in this contest, unfortunately, risks being governance itself. When political energy is consumed by loyalty tests and factional supremacy, policy focus suffers. Kano’s challenges—urban congestion, youth unemployment, educational deficits, and security concerns—require a governor fully immersed in administration, not in constant political firefighting.

There is also the electoral implication. While Kwankwasiyya remains a formidable grassroots force, incumbency is a powerful weapon. State resources, visibility, and administrative control can quickly reshape political narratives. The assumption that loyalty automatically translates into electoral dominance may underestimate the pragmatism of Nigerian voters, especially when power dynamics shift.

Yet, Abba Yusuf’s path is equally fraught. Detaching from a movement that delivered his victory carries political costs. Kano’s electorate is emotionally invested, and symbols matter. If his administration fails to convincingly outperform expectations, the narrative of ingratitude could harden into electoral punishment.

Ultimately, this is not just a Kano story; it is a Nigerian one. It forces a national reflection on whether mandates belong to parties, movements, godfathers or the individuals elected by the people. The Constitution is clear, but politics rarely is.

Perhaps the wisest outcome lies not in triumph or humiliation but in recalibration. Political movements must learn to institutionalise beyond personalities, while elected officials must acknowledge the moral debts that brought them to power. Neither absolute loyalty nor total independence offers a sustainable path.

As the dust settles, the sarcasm of ’yan a ci dadi lafiya and wuya ba ta kisa may fade, but the questions will linger. In Nigeria’s democracy, mandate is both a legal instrument and a moral contract. Kano’s unfolding drama reminds us that ignoring either side of that equation comes at a cost—sometimes higher than any political suffering.

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

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 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.