Nigerian Politics

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.

By Ibrahiym A. El-Caleel

Given his profile as an Islamic scholar and public servant, Imam Dr Isa Pantami’s aspiration for the Gombe State governorship continues to attract attention from multiple quarters. What caught my attention yesterday were the closing lines of Jaafar Jaafar, the publisher and editor of Daily Nigerian, in a brief social media post on the candidature. Jaafar remarked:

“Nigerian politics is grimy. You cannot work in a sewer line and expect to come out clean. Mallam (Pantami) should prepare to mudsling, dip his paws in a cookie jar, dance to the tune of Rarara songs, shake hands with female foreign investors and diplomats, visit churches, steal some billions from security vote, divert public funds for political activities, hire thugs during rallies, lie during campaign, rig during election, take kickbacks after contract award, etc.”

Jaafar is clearly not endorsing these practices; he is only highlighting the grime and immorality that dominate Nigerian politics. Yet I disagree with the implicit suggestion that Mallam Pantami must get his hands dirty simply because he is now in frontline politics. No, he does not.

Pantami does not need to embrace corruption to win elections, nor must he compromise his morals to win or govern successfully after victory. These practices do not constitute the winning formula for elections even in Nigeria. Their dominance in our politics are symptoms that our political system has been hijacked by the morally bankrupt over the years.

Unfortunately, many Western philosophers and some Eastern philosophers have theorised a political thought that sidelines morality. They present it as if power must always be ruthless and corrupt. Niccolò Machiavelli, in his famous work The Prince, famously separated politics from conventional morality. He argued that the end justifies the means and that a ruler should be prepared to use deception, force, or cruelty to consolidate power. Better to be feared than loved, he asserted, if both cannot be achieved.

We see the same philosophy from the likes of Friedrich Nietzsche, Max Weber, Henry Kissinger and even the famous Robert Greene of our age. Their common premise is that politics is about power and domination; that stability and the balance of power matter more than moral ideals; that leaders may employ force, deception, and unethical means to maintain authority; and that some, like Nietzsche, even suggest that morality is a human invention of the weak.

The consequences are visible across the globe. Leaders who internalise these philosophies often govern through ruthlessness, corruption, and moral compromise. In so doing, they have soiled their hands in blood, sex scandals, human rights abuses, economic sabotage, and corruption. This is why, for example, several prominent world leaders have skeletons in Jeffrey Epstein’s wardrobe. They have abandoned morality in their pursuit of power. Today, they are prisoners of their actions.

In contrast, Islamic political philosophy teaches that a ruler must be powerful yet morally accountable, serving as a role model for society. Consider Umar ibn al-Khattab (Umar I), the rightly guided caliph, whose governance was a masterclass in combining justice, authority, and compassion. Umar I punished governors publicly, enforced the law even on the elites, maintained military discipline, and ensured state stability. Yet he was profoundly compassionate: during a famine, he refused to eat butter or meat until the people were fed, and he personally delivered food to the hungry. This was not a democracy; it was a caliphate, yet moral leadership reinforced his authority rather than undermined it.

Umar ibn Abdulaziz (Umar II), the Umayyad Caliph, provides another striking example. Before his ascension to power, the Khutbah (Friday sermons) were often laden with political propaganda, and some rulers ordered preachers to insult and curse Caliph Ali bn Abi Talib from the pulpit in political rivalry. They turned the khutbah into a tool for political rivalry rather than moral guidance. Umar II stopped this vile practice immediately he became the Caliph. He banned curses and political abuses from the revered pulpit of sermons and replaced them with Qur’anic verses. This was exemplary moral courage.

However, Umar II returned the stolen wealth of his predecessors and officials to the national treasury. He reformed corrupt systems gradually because he believes moral change is institutional, not emotional. He abolished oppressive taxes and unjust land confiscations, redistributed state wealth to reduce inequality, and institutionalised meritocracy. Under this meritocracy, he appointed governors and officials based on competence rather than family or tribal loyalty. He removed corrupt and incompetent officials even from his own Umayyad family. Therefore, he revived Islamic ethics in governance.

The last example I will cite here is the famous Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid, who was cited by Chinua Achebe in his book, The Trouble with Nigeria. Harun al-Rashid is another classic example of a leader who combined political power with moral conscience. He was known to travel incognito at night among Baghdad’s citizens to hear complaints directly and make amends where needed. Despite his moral inclinations, the Abbasid dynasty reached its political and cultural peak under Harun al-Rashid. His reign kicked off what later became known as the “Islamic Golden Age”, which gave the world an intellectual gift, the Baytul Hikmah (House of Wisdom).

These examples make one point crystal clear: moral corruption is a choice, not a prerequisite for leadership. The more the world internalises Machiavellian philosophies, the more it empowers the ruthless and morally bankrupt. For Imam Dr Isa Pantami, his candidature is a litmus test. Should he compromise his ethical standards, he risks tarnishing decades of personal integrity. Yet he also has the opportunity to carve out a niche in Nigerian politics by leveraging his clean record, focus, and moral credibility. If he can win ethically and govern without succumbing to corrupt pressures, he could make history, embodying the same fusion of power and moral conscience exemplified by Umar ibn al-Khattab, Umar ibn Abdulaziz, and Harun al-Rashid.

I wish him success and look forward to observing whether he can translate his reputation into leadership that blends authority with moral responsibility, setting a new standard for governance in Nigeria. He is a specimen we should observe; let us see how morally upright people swim against the black tides of our politics. If he succeeds, more morally upright people need to enter politics and help us fix this broken country as early as possible, before it’s too late.

Ibrahiym A. El-Caleel wrote from Zaria, Kaduna State, via caleel2009@gmail.com.

By Abba Hikima

It is clear to even the most daft Nigerian that Nyesom Wike, a serving member of President Tinubu’s Federal Executive Council, is only in the PDP to sabotage it and clear the path for his benefactor, the President, come the 2027 elections. What may not, however, be clear is the extent to which Wike’s tactics and antics can undermine Nigeria’s democracy.

Whether you are APC, PDP, ADC or even politically indifferent, Wike’s actions should bother you, as long as you dream of a truly democratic Nigeria where institutions transcend whimsical meddling of the few.

From any angle, one sees a deliberate pattern that systematically seeks to dismantle the country’s main opposition party and tilts the political landscape dangerously toward one-party dominance.

The recent Federal High Court injunction, restraining the PDP from holding its planned November 15 National Convention, issued by Justice J. Omotosho, only reinforces this pattern. It aligns with a string of judicial outcomes and political manoeuvres that have consistently favoured Wike’s factional interests, all at the expense of Nigeria’s fragile democratic balance.

Between 2023 and 2025, Wike’s loyalists seized the PDP’s national secretariat at Wadata Plaza, installed their own acting chairman, and plunged the party into even deeper crisis. Earlier, he had been linked to moves to demolish the PDP headquarters in Port Harcourt and to lawsuits that derailed planned conventions.

These deliberate acts of sabotage are calculated to dismantle opposition structures and weaken the political alternatives that every democracy relies on. In Nigeria today, prominent political opposition actors are crosscarpeting from their political parties to the ruling APC, not because the APC is doing better, but to salvage their seats and realise their aspirations, which appear rather vivid with the APC.

In saner climes, inclusion of opposition figures within ruling governments is a laudable means of promoting national unity and bridging gaps. But in Nigeria’s case, Wike’s dual role, serving as a federal minister while wielding extraordinary control over an opposition party, is clearly a means of manipulation.

It blurs ethical boundaries and deprives citizens of genuine democratic alternatives.

Even more disturbing is Wike’s perceived closeness to certain segments of the judiciary- what Professor Chidi Anselm Odinkalu aptly described as a “pathological fixation.”

From 2019 to 2025, at least five major cases tied directly or indirectly to Wike’s interests have been heard before the same judge, fueling concerns of judicial clientelism —a scenario where powerful litigants can select their forums by proxy.

The danger goes far beyond politics.

If political elites can manipulate opposition parties while simultaneously bending judicial processes to their favour, then democracy becomes mere theatre. A performance that preserves power and erodes accountability.

Having said this, the National Judicial Council should randomise the assignment of politically sensitive cases and ensure that no single judge repeatedly handles matters involving the same litigants. A stronger ethical firewall must also be built between judicial officers and politically exposed persons.

Politically, Nigeria must introduce conflict-of-interest rules that bar sitting ministers or presidential appointees from exerting control over opposition parties. Democracy cannot thrive when the same hand both governs and manipulates its opposition.

Coming this far, we must accept that reform is not optional; it is existential.

Abba Hikima, Esq. wrote from Kano, Nigeria.

By Abdulrahman M. Abu-Yaman 

The title race is between two horses and a little horse that needs milk and needs to learn how to jump. –  Jose Mourinho

When the controversial Jose Mourinho made this statement above, it was about football and the race to the Premier League title in 2014, but we never knew a time would come when it would be more suitable to fit into the Nigerian political context as it relates to the switch and frequent change of allegiance from one political party to another.

THE FIRST HORSE

The first horse, being the All Progressives Congress (APC), is the current defending champion in political power and the acclaimed favourite to retain the presidential title going into 2027, based on the power and influence that come with being an incumbent leader in Nigeria. Only once has it occurred since the fourth republic that an incumbent was defeated, and even that took what some have tagged as a miracle when President Jonathan made the famous call to the late former President Muhammadu Buhari (of blessed memory) and conceded. 

This horse has taken on different forms over the years and has been given various names by the political power brokers who have bet on it to win. Part of its defunct origin was the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), formed in 1998, a year before the fourth republic general elections. However, its popularity was quite limited to the northern part of Nigeria, not as pronounced in other regions of the country. Former President Muhammadu Buhari had contested twice and lost under the ANPP in 2003 and 2007, respectively.

Another major segment of its primordial origins emerged from the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), which was formed in 2006. It was formerly known as the Action Congress, which in turn was formed from the merger of its factions with minor political parties, including the Alliance for Democracy (AD), the Justice Party (JP), and the Advanced Congress of Democrats (ACD), among others.

Then came the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), founded in 2009. It gained significant influence due to the impact of late Muhammadu Buhari and his millions of supporters in the northern part of Nigeria, who contested under the party’s platform in the 2011 elections. 

In 2013, the progressives and congresses in some major political parties with these words present in their acronym merged into one; the Action Congress of Nigeria, Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), a faction of the All Progressive Grand Alliance and finally, the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) to form the All Progressives Congress (APC) – the most formidable opposition group as a party in Nigeria since the return to democracy in 1999 to unseat any incumbent President in power.

THE SECOND HORSE(S)

The second horse(s) in the race are obviously divided and sharing that position based on recent trajectories and events that had left one of the horses deemed as second favourite to crumble and hanging on a thin thread; speaking of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), as long as it still has time to regroup and put its house in order, it cannot be ruled out of the race based on its political structure long established that cuts across all states in Nigeria.

The PDP was formed in 1998, in the twilight leading up to the 1999 general elections, by a group of political bigwigs who adopted Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, a former military head of state and a prisoner released from the dungeon after the end of the Abacha era. Obasanjo, coming from the south-west region of the country, was seen by many as the best candidate to step into what would have been Chief MKO Abiola’s rightful position as winner of the annulled June 12 elections if he had lived up to 1999 but for his sad and shocking demise in 1998.

The PDP won the 1999 election by a majority of votes and held a majority of seats in the National Assembly. In 2003, the party continued to dominate the political space in Nigeria, growing in influence and power, albeit under some questionable electioneering processes in 2003, 2007 and 2011, respectively, having spent sixteen years in power as the ruling party. During that period, it became the largest party not only in Nigeria but also on the African continent.

However, unfortunately for the PDP, their dream of achieving the milestone of twenty years in power was cut short in 2015 when the APC, a new, formidable force energised and regrouped, ran them out of control. 

Since then, the PDP has contested twice as an opposition party and lost to the APC in 2019 and 2023, but edged them out in 2015. The PDP has also had to lose some of its members who have decamped to the APC and has since struggled to remain as firm and relevant as it once was. The only reason it occupies the second spot as a favourite is its longevity, structural base, and the influence of some stakeholders behind the corridors of power, who are still salvaging what is left to stand firm.

Moving away from the PDP, the other second favourite only came to fruition and gained traction a few months ago, orchestrated by one man, Mal. Nasir El-Rufai, who initiated the movement that led to the formation of a coalition that later evolved into the political party rebranded as the African Democratic Congress (ADC). The party had been in existence before its formation in 2005 as the Alliance for Democratic Change. 

The formation of the ADC elicited mixed reactions in the Nigerian political space. While some saw it as the long-awaited vibrant opposition to challenge the incumbent party in power, others viewed it as a selfish endeavour created by those who had been bruised and pushed out of the epicentre of power, seeking to make a comeback by any means necessary. This notion was proven to be more relevant when the ADC reached out to past or aggrieved members of the APC and PDP to form part of its board and core membership from the official flag-off. 

Nevertheless, it is still considered the second favourite in the race because if history is anything to go by, just as in the words of Jesse Jackson: 

“In politics, an organised minority is a political majority”

Just as in the case of the APC, which was formed two years short of the 2015 elections and later emerged as the winner, the regrouped ADC party and its influx of new members can’t be underestimated.  

Another reason the ADC could be frontrunners could be their ability to capitalise on the harsh economic realities in the country that have affected the masses and present the party as an alternative to better their welfare, just as the same members of the ADC did way back in 2015 when they were members of the APC, which they now want to substitute out of power. 

THE LITTLE HORSE IN THE RACE

The little horse that needs milk to learn how to jump is the Labour Party (LP). It was also driven and triggered to relevance in the 2023 general elections due to the influence of one man, specifically Peter Obi, who was spoken of as the party’s flag bearer. The LP not only defeated the APC in their own stronghold in Lagos but also defeated the ruling party in the Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria’s capital and centre of governance. It was unprecedented and sent a clear message that the LP did not just come to make up the numbers like some minority parties. 

But be that as it may, their numbers in Lagos and Abuja, coupled with the ones from the east and the Niger Delta region, were not enough to put them in second position in the race. This is why it needs to spread its wings to cover all political nooks and crannies in other regions, especially northern Nigeria, where it is yet to get a solid grip.

The recent involvement of Peter Obi with the ADC could lead to a compromise and weaken the party’s strength, as it revolves around him. One of the LP’s former spokesmen also lamented him for not doing enough as a leader and his inability to resolve the party’s internal crisis. He also raised concerns about his failure to build a strong party base to secure the mandate. 

Still, the only reason the LP is coming in third in the horse race is because of the unexpected stunt it pulled and its potential to do more if, and only if, it can capitalise on its momentum to leap ahead like other horses in the race.

THE EXODUS AND CONVENIENT SWITCH BETWEEN PARTIES 

Nigerian politics and politicians tend to switch sides to any political party that offers them a higher chance of winning. It occurred in 1999, when the PDP was formed and founded by members of various political parties. 

In 2003, as the PDP grew in strength and power, it received more members, and others had to decamp from their prior political platforms to join it. It was beginning to look like the only way to win an election was to join the party that was already winning. 

2007 and 2011 were no different as the PDP retained power in government. However, the only parties that managed to maintain some of their strongest and most popular members were the ANPP in 2003/2007, and the CPC in the 2011 general elections, when they fielded Muhammadu Buhari as their presidential candidate in the respective years.

In the buildup to the 2015 election, a massive exodus of politicians decamped from the ‘umbrella’ that had sheltered them in political office to the newly formed APC, which was gaining immense popularity, especially in the northern and western parts of Nigeria. The presidential flag bearer was a familiar figure who was contesting for the fourth and possibly his last attempt, having been persuaded to do so. The APC, like the PDP in the past, also welcomed all members from other parties, irrespective of their past reputation or allegations while in office. In the end, the party grew from being the strongest opposition to becoming the favourite to win the election, which they eventually did.

LOST OF POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES/IDENTITIES

When we start seeing political players decamping at will, it is time to question whether any of the political parties place a high premium on their criteria for membership in relation to their ideologies before accepting any candidate into their fold. Do politicians care any less if the party they join aligns with their manifestos and visionary blueprint for good governance and leadership?

It is beginning to look like a game of chess, with calculated moves aimed at checkmating the ultimate power in the political positions they crave. The only pawns in this game are the masses who have yet to figure out that changing their clothes to another has nothing to do with the real person behind those clothes. A stained reputation, especially in previous leadership positions, coupled with a proven track record of underperformance and incompetence, cannot be covered by new political platforms.

However, the interesting aspect of all this is the emergence of a solid opposition to keep the ruling parties on their toes. Previously, with the decline and crisis in the PDP, Nigeria was moving towards a single-party state due to the frequent switch of its members to joining the APC. It is well timed that the LED coalition, which has resolved to adopt the ADC as its political platform, includes big names like former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, who is also a former PDP presidential aspirant. Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s presidential candidate, has also been seen and involved in some of their meetings. And for the first time since the APC’s ascension to power, they seem concerned about the growing popularity of the ADC and the threat it may pose to their hold on power. Deja vu?

Conclusively, all the parties involved in the horse race have exhibited similar symptoms of identity and ideological crisis in their consistent switch of allegiance to suit their needs. The thin line between them is getting blurrier in their actions and adoptions. Everyone is welcome to any party at any time. No litmus test, exceptional integrity, or individual evaluation criteria needed. Once you are in, all sins are forgiven, and then you are baptised as a new member. 

The ADC is not only like the APC alphabetically, but also in the content of its members and its contextual existence. The primary concern here is whether some members of the ADC could potentially break away from the party in the future, particularly in the event of any unresolved disagreement or fallout within the party. Are we to brace ourselves for another hypothetical ‘ABC’ party if it comes to that? Time is the ultimate revealer. 

By Usman Muhammad Salihu,

In Nigeria today, the loudest voices belong to politicians, policymakers, and power brokers. They dominate the headlines, flood our timelines, and distract us with promises that rarely survive beyond campaign seasons. Yet, the true story of this country isn’t written in the echo chambers of Abuja or the mansions of Lagos. It is written daily in the struggles, resilience, and quiet innovations of ordinary citizens.

Think about the woman who wakes before dawn to fry bean cakes by the roadside, not only to feed her children but also to put other people’s children on the road to school. Or the young graduate who, tired of waiting for white-collar jobs, starts a small business online and employs three others. These stories rarely make the news. Yet, they are the heartbeat of our nation.

But here’s the tragedy: Contemporary Nigeria seems designed to work against these everyday heroes. Power cuts paralyse small businesses. Inflation, now on food items, erodes family savings before the end of the month. Insecurity forces farmers to abandon their fields and traders to fear the road. Meanwhile, most of the political class remains locked in battles over appointments, power-sharing, and personal interests.

The question is not whether Nigeria has potential; we have repeated that mantra for decades. The real question is, when will we begin to prioritise the citizen above the system?

Imagine a Nigeria where governance shifts from elite negotiations to practical solutions: working schools, safe communities, accessible healthcare, and reliable electricity. That’s not fantasy; it is a choice.

The good news is that despite the odds, Nigerians are not waiting. Communities are solving their own problems. Tech-savvy youths are creating digital markets. Women’s cooperatives are building small savings pools. Farmers are collaborating to beat middlemen. These are the silent revolutions we must amplify, not just the failures of the elite.

If the political class won’t prioritise the citizen, then the media, civil society, and Nigerians themselves must. We must shift the spotlight from what politicians promise to what Nigerians are already doing, because that is how change starts – not from the top, but from the people who refuse to give up.

Nigeria stands at a crossroads. One road leads to more political drama, endless debates, and broken promises. The other road leads to a citizen-centred nation where leaders are compelled to serve, not rule.

The choice is ours. But more importantly, the responsibility is theirs.

Usman Muhammad Salihu was among the pioneer fellows of PRNigeria and wrote from Jos, Nigeria. He can be reached via muhammadu5363@gmail.com.

By ‎Sadiq Aliyu Waziri

‎With cliches such as the game of politics, playing politics, the political arena, politics is a dirty game, politics is a game of chess, politics is a game of power, politics is a game of cat and mouse, and many others alike, which metaphorically compare politics to a game, many that participate in it think it is a game-literally. It was Dr. Abdulaziz T. Bako who made the analogy, on Facebook sometime back, of how football fans supported their clubs to how many Nigerians took politics. However, is politics a game? 

‎The former Nigerian President, General Muhammadu Buhari, passed away two days ago. Moments after the announcement, photos of the widow of the late former President were seen circulating on social media. The images were captioned, stating that the deceased had bequeathed her to seek forgiveness from Nigerians on his behalf. She pleaded with Nigerians to forgive her husband before he was laid to rest. ‎

‎Since the announcement of the passing, followed by Aisha Buhari’s words, people became divided, with a section of them expressing their shock, forgiving and praying for the deceased. In contrast, others reminisce about Buhari’s time in office, voice out their dismay, and even go to the extent of publicising their rejection of the late President’s prayer. Again, there has been another section of people who even publicly celebrate the death. 

‎Let us recall that Buhari, just two years ago, was the most powerful, famous, and arguably the most loved Nigerian politician before he came to power in 2015. Who would have thought then that people would say unkind words about him or even celebrate his death? People idolised him; they fought and died for this man to gain power. 

‎Perhaps seeing Buhari’s widow, who at once felt she could not put up with a teasing statement from an immature university student, at people’s mercy, begging on her husband’s behalf, might make those who “play” the “game” of politics rethink their position, to realise that it is not a game. It never has been and never will be. 

‎To many of the player-participants, politics is merely a game to be played and won, with the ultimate goal of securing leadership positions and staying relevant. To many of the supporter-participants, it serves as an avenue to support and cheer the players, making money, securing appointments in some cases, and engaging in trolling one another. They come out and defend whatever wrong their bosses do and discredit and blemish whatever right their rivals do, simply because it’s all a game to them.‎

‎If they take politics as a game, it is at their own peril. And, it is high time that the people who participate in politics and take it as such understood that politics touches people’s lives. And that they do not have separate lives from their political activities. Every action, decision, cheer, support, defending, discrediting, blemish, etc., will be accounted for. They could view politics as a game, if that is what they choose, but it’s about this world for the next one.   

‎

‎Sadiq Aliyu Waziri wrote via sawaziry@yahoo.com.

By Zayyad I. Muhammad

The passing of former President Muhammadu Buhari marks not just the end of an era but also a significant political loss for two of the three key political parties in Nigeria, the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the rising coalition force, the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

For both parties, Buhari represented more than just a former head of state; he was a political symbol with immense influence. His mere presence at a campaign rally, no matter how brief, would have carried tremendous weight, particularly among his loyal base, which is estimated to be over 12 million strong. These supporters, often described as a “cult-like” following, have remained fiercely committed to him since his early political days under the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) and the Buhari Organisation. However, the number may have decreased by now.

In recent times, many former CPC loyalists and Buhari-era political operatives have appeared to find a new home in the ADC, reshaping its structure and lending it a dose of national relevance. This quiet but strategic realignment has positioned the ADC as a potential beneficiary of some of the Buhari political legacy, especially in northern Nigeria, where his influence remains deeply rooted. However, a good number of the CPC bloc and the Buhari Organisation have remained in the APC.

Had Buhari lived to make even a symbolic appearance at an APC campaign event, it would have significantly dampened the ADC’s momentum and reinforced the APC’s claim to his enduring political capital. Conversely, had he chosen to lend his image, even silently, to the ADC, it would have sent shockwaves through the APC, raising questions about its hold over his base.

Now, with his passing, both parties are left in a competitive vacuum, each scrambling to appeal to the millions who revered Buhari for his perceived integrity, simple lifestyle, and northern populist appeal. The political battlefield is wide open, and neither the APC nor the ADC can confidently claim to be the rightful heir to Buhari’s legacy.

However, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu may have gained an early edge. His respectful and dignified handling of Buhari’s death, marked by prompt tributes, state honours, and symbolic gestures, may resonate with many of Buhari’s followers. In Nigerian politics, such symbolic acts are never underestimated. They signal alignment, loyalty, and shared values, all of which matter deeply to a base that is emotional, ideological, and still seeking a new political anchor.

As the 2027 election cycle approaches, the real question becomes: Who will inherit the Buhari political machinery? The answer may shape the future of both the APC and ADC, and by extension, Nigeria’s political landscape.

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

By Yakubu Nasiru Khalid

Still, addressing the public’s issues remains challenging in northern Nigeria. Media outlets favour partisanship over accuracy or truth, and the Nigerian media requires a controlling apparatus. 

Media outlets are considered a room where the underprivileged can address their problems to the government or private individuals who breach their rights. However, media outlets are now mainly sponsored and do not act independently or impartially when telling the truth. 

When I was young, I saw journalists as saviours who worked as architects or social engineers to prioritise public interests and solutions over personal or government interests, but now I see the opposite.

This results in the loss of hope that the electronic or printing media cannot serve as a messianic approach to standing against the breaching of the rights of ordinary citizens.

Even though media and journalistic standards attest to and measure a report’s accuracy and truthfulness, the ongoing challenge for media outlets remains their preference for partisanship over impartiality and independence.

For this reason, fact-checking media and journalists are mostly needed in electronic media (online Newspapers). Most media companies are owned and managed by people not equipped with journalism etiquette; they do it for a passion. 

While passion in journalism can often render one unprofessional, incompetent, or unethical in reporting, investigating, or addressing issues, it is essential for those who have not studied media to understand its etiquette, even if it means obtaining a certificate in the field.

It’s known that Nigerian media companies are owned by private individuals and deprived of government-approved control mechanisms or apparatus. They aim to generate income, which leads to sparks of misinformation from various media outlets. 

Lastly, I suggest media companies refrain from favouring personal or political interests over factual or truthful reportingor addressing public issues. I also advise those passionate about journalism to learn its etiquette formally.

Yakubu Nasiru Khalid wrote via yakubunasirukhalid@gmail.com.

By Nura Jibo

For so long, I abandoned writing on Nigeria and its leadership situation because doing so wastes time, energy, and resources. I avoided discussing its precarious situation because I am still very sceptical and, most of the time, extremely despondent about its progress and development.

But whenever one realizes that certain classes of people in the country, most especially the current Nigerian politicians, are clueless and ignorant about the dynamics of global change in various countries of the world, one has no choice but to waste another day clearing the bushfires or/and the politicians’ colonial hot air historical jargon.

Most of my friends have known my candid view(s) for so long about why Nigeria, and by extension, Africa, is generally not developed and almost 98% of the countries on the continent, including mine, cannot grow!

The stupefaction of colonization historical facts by the Nigerian “political class” and even its military apparatus is entirely unwholesome, very untrue, and most of the time very dangerous to our national savvy! I don’t want to call the current political crooks in Nigeria “leaders” because most of them are perturbed and pathological liars! Indeed, the legendary Bob Robert Nesta Marley had squarely defined the world’s political ruling classes, especially the political presidents and their ruling maladroitness, in one of the songs that he dubbed “Real Situation.” Marley and his honourable Wailers explained succinctly through music the political mentality of the local and international politicians.

Hear the legendary Marley and the Wailers:

I quoted this legendary musical maestro of all time to make a case in point over Nigeria’s political class’s incomprehensible incompetence and distorted Western colonization historical accounts. They fabricated and are still fabricating lots of lies by blaming the Western world for the country’s political and military underdevelopment. They always point accusing fingers at the colonial masters, and, very recently, they are “perfecting” their scheme by throwing their “leadership” lacklustre truncheon at foreign countries’ influence!

You may accuse Bob Marley by calling him names for being an Apocynum cannabinum (Indian hemp) chain smoker. However, one thing you can never take away from him is his mastery of the English language through music. He concluded that global politicians, especially the Nigerian brand (emphasis mine), are generally “devils and corrupt.” May Allah give Marley relief for advocating the nicest words via philosophical lyrics!

According to Bob, ninety per cent of what politicians say is untrue. Therefore, one should think twice before taking them seriously.

The real Nigeria’s situation 15 to 20 years after independence

Both the Nigerian military “elites” and the political class are too economical with the truth nowadays. They shamelessly accuse Western countries such as America, Britain, and France of intervening or meddling in their leadership affairs! They blame these countries for Nigeria’s lack of economic development and prosperity because they think everybody will believe what they say. 

With due respect, I beg all Nigerians, whether army or civilian, to sincerely disagree on the veracity of Nigerian politicians and even its military leaders’ blame for Western influence, interference, or blame game. Why does the Nigerian political class, including its military, resort to this unfounded ideology to ruin our people, make them highly impoverished and pauperized, and, in the end, make the entire citizenry appear inferior to the political class subjugation and their cantankerous posture? One hasn’t the vaguest idea!

Twenty years after the country’s independence, Nigeria’s situation was by far the best in Africa and, by extension, more than certain countries in Europe and the Americas (both North and South).

Many foreign nations were present in Nigeria, doing business with grandeur, style, and passion for their businesses in Nigeria. Canada and its companies were here in Nigeria in the 1980s, with their businesses thriving remarkably. Italy and Italians came to Nigeria and did serious business with FIAT Coy. They competed very seriously with Steyr Motor Company in Bauchi State, Nigeria. 

Britain, our colonizer, and its companies were here in Nigeria in the 1970s and 1980s, flourishing their grand businesses in Nigeria. Indeed, Italy and its companies were here in Kano, Nigeria, in the 1970s and 1980s, doing their business generally in the country. France and its companies were here in Nigeria in the 1970s and 1980s, doing their business diligently with respect for the Nigerian people.

Let’s start with Canada! The Canadians were interested in investing in Nigeria. They came with their renowned company, Steyr, founded by its farmer, Mr. Leopold Heide. They sought a partnership with the Nigerian government. Canada convinced Nigeria of the reputation of the Steyr motor company, which was performing remarkably in Steinbach. It entered into a partnership business with Nigeria and established an assembly plant in Bauchi State. It supported the Nigerian government to employ hardworking Nigerians. 

Canada trained and taught Nigerians how to assemble Steyr tractors, trucks, and buses in Bauchi. Within a year, Nigerians could produce 5,000 tractors, 2,000 trucks, and 2,000 buses inside the Steyr quarters, located just a little bit on the outskirts of Bauchi State. This Canadian company was performing remarkably. At that time, Nigeria was not purchasing trucks or tractors from China or anywhere else. 

Then Nigeria produces its farming tractors and trucks! It did not matter to look anywhere else the way its current president is busy wasting his time globetrotting to Qatar and France to beg their leaders to come and invest in an atmosphere that is no longer passionate!

Steyr tractors and buses were all over Nigeria until the company met its Waterloo in the hands of Nigeria’s military government. The military privatized it and sold it to individuals. The remnant of the company is now grappling with the issues of its old workers who spent well over six years without salaries as of 2002. The rest is history! But I shall come back to this point and advise on how it could be revived and salvaged for the Nigerian farmers. So that they no longer look up to China to have agricultural success.

Fabrica Italian Automobili Torino, popularly called FIAT Company, was here in Kano State, Nigeria! They came from Turin, Italy, and established FIAT IVECO, which Giovanni Agnelli originally founded. Indeed, the actual English translation of FIAT is not roughly far-fetched from the Italian Automobiles Factory, Turin (FIAT). 

Then, Kano produced amazing tractors for farmers who farmed large hectares of land and produced groundnut pyramids that were second to none globally! Kano, Nigeria, was a hub and a beehive of groundnut activities worldwide. Kano imported groundnuts to most parts of Europe and other African developing nations. 

Courtesy of Torino Italiano! Where our politicians got the notion to accuse the white people of killing Nigeria, and Nigerians are just trying to tell half-truths or untruths about the reality of Nigeria’s situation.

11. The British and their companies were visibly doing great business to elevate Nigeria to the loftiest heights. And I will tell you how! I will explain in clear terms to the corrupt Nigeria’s political class that the majority of them are either not educated, half-educated, or even ignorant about what colonialism and colonial or external inference stand for, especially in this modern world.

The British came from Nottingham, England, and established their Raleigh Bicycle Company in various places in Nigeria, including Kano State. My dad bought a Raleigh for my elder brother around 1982–1983! I cannot remember the year, but I was busy stealing a show of Brother Abubakar’s mastery. Anytime he was cycling on his brand-new Raleigh, it was amazing! One day, he gave me an idea of how to ride a bicycle! 

In 1984, our dad was posted to the local government of Hadejia in old Kano State. We were housed at Site Quarters along Birniwa Road! Our staff quarters were a few kilometres from a village called Gandun Sarki in Hadejia local government. Our daddy’s neighbour and a father to our two friends, Sani Bello and Abubakar Bello, bought them a Raleigh Chopper! I still remember Sani giving me a ride on his beautiful Raleigh Chopper. And lest you forget, Raleigh was initially founded by Sir Frank Bowden. 

Frank discovered himself and his high penchant for cycling on Raleigh after experiencing its health benefits firsthand after he had a spell of bad health. But unlike Frank’s, Sani Bello’s Raleigh Chopper and Abubakar’s Raleigh Bicycles sincerely made our days feel like we were on top of the world! We were, of course, busy cycling and dreaming of growing up in Britain so that we could have our Raleighs! 

Contrary to our terrible political leaders, who are bereft of ideas and don’t know what to do to salvage the city’s public transportation systems, they refuse to revive the Raleigh Companies or to go and beg Nottingham to come back to Kano and construct a new brand of Raleigh Company and Bicycle Roads’ network to alleviate mass transit in petrol cars and buses.

The French Michelin Company and its people were in Lagos and Port Harcourt! The Michelin Group of Companies, headquartered in Clermont Ferrand, France, felt very comfortable leaving their comfort zones to come and invest in Michelin tyres in Nigeria! Then, the Michelin Group provides excellent-quality tyres to Nigerian motorists and over 170 countries at a very cheap and affordable price! 

Today, these political crooks in governance are trying to fix Nigerian roads in a very crooked way, using trillions of naira that ordinarily were supposed to have been utilized in other areas to build a world-class transportation system in Nigeria. The French also had their Peugeot assembly plant in Kaduna State, Nigeria. 

Every government senior staff member in either local, state, or federal civil service was officially provided with a brand new Peugeot car and a driver! Then, Nigeria was doing excellently in terms of staff welfare and human capital development. One hasn’t the slightest idea how our modern-day and broad daylight political thieves got the notion of always pointing accusing fingers at the Western world over the current national predicament.

To be continued!

Nura Jibo, MRICS, wrote in from Marriot Marquis. Contact Nura at jibonura@yahoo.com.

By Muhammad Salisu

In 1973, there was a bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden. The robbery turned into hostage-taking. The hostages, however, later became sympathetic defenders of the perpetrators. This incident and its aftermath would later lead to the coinage of the psychological disorder known as Stockholm Syndrome.

A similar incident happened in which an American named Patty Hearst was kidnapped by a terrorist organisation called Symbiotic Liberation Army. Ms Hearst became sympathetic to the organisation and joined them in bank robberies.

Recently, in Nigeria, a train was attacked by bandits, and many of the train’s occupants were kidnapped. One pregnant victim was later released. However, in an interview, she defended the kidnappers’ actions. She literally became their mouthpiece.

Kidnapped victims may defend their kidnappers due to so many reasons. For example, it may be out of fear and so on.

Turning to the Nigerian political parlance, the Nigerian political class has, since time immemorial, held their masses hostage. The rulers loot public treasures; people are enslaved and impoverished. The ruling class enrich themselves and their families at the mercy of the masses. However, you find the masses who are the victims supporting the rulers.

In Nigeria, there are many reasons why people glorify those who enslave them. It may be to get what to eat; it may be because the ruler is from one’s family, religion, political party, region, or tribe. It may also be a clear case of Stockholm Syndrome!

Muhammad Muhammad Salisu wrote via muhdibnmuhd@gmail.com.