Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso

By Usman Muhammad Salihu

In Nigerian politics, defections are no longer surprising. What is surprising now is how quickly they happen and how easily political actors move from one platform to another.

The recent defection of Peter Obi and Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso from the African Democratic Congress (ADC) to the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) is not just another political adjustment. It is a bold move. But bold does not always mean safe.

At first glance, the decision appears strategic. Internal crises within the ADC, legal uncertainties, and the pressure of electoral timelines make stability a priority. From that angle, shifting to a new platform may seem like a necessary step, an attempt to secure political ground ahead of a highly competitive 2027.

There is also strength in the alliance itself. The coming together of Obi and Kwankwaso brings national attention, regional balance, and an existing base of supporters. On paper, that is not just movement; it is potential consolidation.

But politics is not played on paper. It is played among the people. And this is where the real challenge begins.

The Nigeria Democratic Congress is still largely unfamiliar to many Nigerians. Beyond political circles and elite discussions, its presence at the grassroots remains limited. For a significant number of voters, especially at the lower levels, NDC is not yet a known political identity.

And in Nigerian elections, familiarity matters. Voters do not just choose candidates. They choose what they recognise. They choose what they trust. They choose what they understand. That is the gap this move must overcome.

Beyond visibility, there are emerging concerns about the platform’s stability. Reports suggest that the Nigerian Democratic Congress may be grappling with internal legal disputes. If proven true, this introduces an even more delicate risk. Moving from one troubled platform to another does not resolve instability; it simply transfers it. And in politics, uncertainty is a cost few can afford at this level.

Because this is no longer just about transferring political influence, it is about building voter awareness from the ground up within a limited time frame. That is not a small task. It is one thing to move with loyalists. It is another thing to move with the electorate. And history has shown that the two do not always align.

There is also a deeper concern. Frequent political movement, no matter how strategic, raises questions of consistency. When platforms change too often, voters begin to look beyond the movement itself and ask a more difficult question: What exactly is constant? Is it ideology? Is it vision? Or is it simply positioning?

These questions matter because today’s voter is less passive than before. There is growing awareness, scrutiny, and an expectation for clarity. So while this move may be necessary from a political standpoint, it is also risky from a public perception angle.

Because speed in politics can be a double-edged sword. Move too slowly, and you lose relevance. Move too quickly, and you lose trust. And right now, this move feels fast. Perhaps calculated. Perhaps unavoidable. But still fast.

So, is this a strategy or a survival tactic? It is arguably both. Strategy, because the timing aligns with political realities. Survival, because unstable platforms leave little room for hesitation.

From another angle, this move is not just a strategy or a matter of survival; it is a gamble. A calculated one, no doubt, but a gamble, nonetheless. It rests on the assumption that political influence can be transferred faster than voter trust can be built. And in a system where recognition often shapes voting decisions, that assumption may prove too optimistic.

But beyond both lies a more uncomfortable possibility: That this could be a leap into a platform that has yet to fully exist in the minds of the people. Because, in the end, political strength is not measured by alliances alone, but by acceptance. And acceptance cannot be transferred overnight.

So, while the move may look bold in Abuja, its real test will come far away from strategy rooms, in markets, in villages, and at the polling units. Where names are remembered, where symbols are recognised, and where unfamiliar platforms are often rejected.

And if that gap is not closed in time, what appears today as a strategy may tomorrow be seen as a miscalculation. Because in Nigerian politics, you can move ahead of the system, but you cannot move ahead of the people. And when that gap exists, even the most calculated move can quickly turn into a costly gamble.

Ultimately, this move will be judged by one metric: conversion rate. How many Obidients and Kwankwasiyya become NDC members, not just in spirit but on the ballot? If the answer is “most,” then history will call it strategy. If the answer is “some,” then it was survival. If the answer is “few,” then it was a miscalculation dressed as ambition. The voters are watching, and their silence right now is louder than any endorsement. For Obi and Kwankwaso, the real campaign did not start in Abuja. It starts the day a trader in Aba and a farmer in Gaya can point to the NDC logo and say, “That is us.”

Usman Muhammad Salihu was among the pioneer fellows of PRNigeria and writes from Jos.

muhammadu5363@gmail.com.

By Abdulhamid Abdullahi Aliyu

Recent signals from Washington suggest a growing impatience with Nigeria’s internal complexities, especially as they relate to religion, security, and political leadership. At the centre of this emerging posture is a troubling tendency to compress Nigeria’s layered crises into externally convenient labels—labels that risk doing more harm than good.

One of the clearest flashpoints in this evolving narrative is the renewed attention to former Kano State governor Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso. His name, along with those of Fulani-affiliated organisations and, by implication, Nigeria’s Muslim political class, has begun to feature in American policy conversations framed around religious freedom and accountability. What appears, at first glance, as principled concern deserves closer scrutiny.

Nigeria’s security breakdown is undeniable. Insurgency, banditry, farmer–herder violence, and organised criminal networks have torn through communities across the country. But these tragedies have never respected religious boundaries. Muslims and Christians, northerners and southerners, rural farmers and urban traders have all paid the price. To reframe this national trauma primarily as a story of religious persecution is to flatten reality into something politically useful but analytically false.

This framing did not emerge organically. It has been cultivated through persistent lobbying, selective reporting, and advocacy-driven briefs circulated within Western policy and faith-based circles. Many of these narratives rely on contested data sets and ideologically motivated interpretations that have been challenged by journalists and security analysts familiar with Nigeria’s terrain. Yet repetition has given them traction.

Under Donald Trump, the United States has shown a greater willingness to convert these narratives into policy instruments. Nigeria’s earlier designation as a “Country of Particular Concern” over alleged religious persecution, and the signals accompanying its reconsideration, reinforced the impression that Washington had settled on a moral script that leaves little room for nuance.

What is especially alarming is how this posture now intersects with Nigeria’s domestic political timeline. The proposal of punitive measures against figures like Kwankwaso—who has no public record of religious extremism—raises uncomfortable questions about motive and timing. Sanctions, visa restrictions, or terror designations do not occur in a vacuum; they shape reputations, constrain political options, and influence electoral perceptions.

Even more dangerous is the elastic use of terms such as “Fulani militia.” The Fulani are not a monolith, nor are they a security organisation. They are a vast, diverse population spread across West and Central Africa, encompassing professionals, farmers, scholars, politicians, and pastoralists. To collapse this diversity into a security label is not accountability—it is ethnic profiling with far-reaching consequences.

Those who defend this approach often argue that allowing clerics or religiously identified politicians into democratic space risks sanctifying power. That concern is not without merit. In plural societies, when political authority borrows the language of divine legitimacy, dissent can be recast as moral deviance. But that argument cuts both ways. External actors who cloak geopolitical interests in moral absolutism risk exporting the very instability they claim to oppose.

Nigeria’s democracy, imperfect as it is, rests on pluralism, negotiation, and the acceptance of politics as a human—rather than sacred—enterprise. When foreign policy instruments treat Nigerian political actors as symbols in a global religious drama, they undermine this fragile equilibrium. Worse still, they embolden local extremists who thrive on polarisation and grievance.

None of this is to argue against international engagement or concern for human rights. On the contrary, Nigeria benefits from cooperation with partners such as the United States in intelligence sharing, capacity building, and counterterrorism. But partnership must be grounded in evidence, context, and restraint—not in sweeping classifications shaped by advocacy pressure or domestic American politics.

If Washington’s objective is stability in West Africa, then the path forward lies in engagement rather than labelling, dialogue rather than designation. Nigeria’s challenges are internal, complex, and deeply rooted. They cannot be solved by reducing political figures to caricatures or entire communities to security threats.

Kwankwaso’s politics, like that of any public figure, should be judged by Nigerians through debate, scrutiny, and the ballot. External political labelling, however well-intentioned, risks distorting that process and deepening divisions within an already strained federation.

In the end, what Nigeria requires from its partners is not moral theatre but sober cooperation. Fairness, evidence, and respect for internal democratic processes remain the only sustainable foundations for international engagement.

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

By Uzair Adam

Prominent opposition figures in Nigeria have paid a visit to the residence of Kwankwasiyya leader, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso.

Those present at the visit included former Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi, Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde, and Senator Seriake Dickson, among other political stakeholders.

In a post shared on his Facebook page, Kwankwaso stated that the politicians were at his residence on a Sallah homage.

Kwankwaso, a leading figure in the opposition New Nigeria Peoples Party, is widely speculated to be considering a move to another political party.

This follows the recent defection of Kano State Governor, Abba Kabir Yusuf, from the NNPP to the ruling All Progressives Congress.

Meanwhile, Peter Obi recently confirmed his official move to the African Democratic Congress, while Governor Makinde remains one of the few governors still in the Peoples Democratic Party, alongside his Bauchi State counterpart.

By Uzair Adam

Former Kano State Governor and leader of the Kwankwasiyya Movement, Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, has said mounting political tension and pressure on grassroots officials informed his decision to allow some of his supporters in the state to align with the All Progressives Congress (APC).

Kwankwaso made the disclosure in a video message that went viral on Tuesday evening, where he described the political climate in Kano as increasingly tense and emotionally draining for local government officials following the political dominance of former Governor Abdullahi Ganduje and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

He said the situation had taken a serious toll on several chairmen, councillors and other political appointees, many of whom reached out to him in distress.

According to Kwankwaso, some of the officials were experiencing sleepless nights and deep confusion, while others reportedly required medical attention due to the pressure they were under.

“Many chairmen and councillors called me to explain what they were going through. Some could not sleep, some were deeply confused, and some were even placed on hospital drips,” he said.

The former governor explained that the rising tension compelled him to consult widely in order to reduce the hardship being faced by his loyalists, noting that many of their legitimate expectations from government were yet to be met.

He said maintaining a rigid political position under such circumstances could have worsened the suffering of the affected officials, which led to the decision to allow them to take steps that would bring relief.

“We agreed that all chairmen, councillors, supervisory councillors and anyone who was asked to sign should go ahead and do so. We have no issue with that,” Kwankwaso said.

He dismissed suggestions that the move was linked to early preparations for the 2027 general elections, stressing that the time for such political battles had not yet arrived.

“2027 is still far away. We pray that Allah spares our lives to reach that time. Our supporters are everywhere; we know them and they know themselves,” he added.

Kwankwaso expressed hope that the decision would help calm political tension in Kano State, particularly among those he said were being subjected to pressure, while thanking residents of the state for their patience and understanding.

He also praised Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf, noting that the governor had recently acknowledged the achievements of the Kwankwasiyya administration and highlighted actions of the immediate past government which, according to him, hindered progress in the state.

In the video, Kwankwaso further alleged that the state government had introduced measures aimed at intimidating local government officials and political appointees.

He claimed that chairmen, councillors, secretaries and other office holders were allegedly compelled to write their names on lists indicating whether they supported the Kwankwasiyya movement or the Ganduje political camp.

Describing the practice as unacceptable, Kwankwaso said such actions would discomfort any well-meaning resident of Kano State, regardless of political affiliation.

He also reflected on the 2015 political transition, alleging that acts of betrayal at the time resulted in years of hardship for his supporters.

“We looked back at history and remembered what happened in 2015, when our supporters suffered for eight years because of political disloyalty,” he said.

The video has continued to generate reactions within and outside Kano State, with supporters and critics offering differing interpretations of Kwankwaso’s remarks and the broader political implications.

By Uzair Adam

Kano State Governor, Abba Kabir Yusuf, has dismissed claims suggesting a rift between him and his political mentor, Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, emphasizing that no one can succeed in creating division between them.

The governor made the clarification on Tuesday in Madobi during a ceremony marking Kwankwaso’s 69th birthday.

He reiterated his unwavering loyalty to the former governor and vowed to continue upholding the ideals and vision of the Kwankwasiyya movement.

“Those within and outside trying to create a quarrel between me and our leader, Engineer Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, will not succeed,” Yusuf stated.

He described Kwankwaso as a divinely inspired leader whose principles have guided the political direction of Kano State, adding that he would remain committed to sustaining his legacy.

Governor Yusuf also prayed for long life and good health for the NNPP national leader, describing him as a visionary whose leadership continues to inspire progress across the state.

Speculations about tension between the duo had surfaced in recent months following the emergence of a movement called “Abba Tsaya da Kafarka” (Abba Stand on Your Feet), allegedly led by former Secretary to the State Government, Dr. Baffa Bichi, and ex-Commissioner for Transport, Alhaji Salisu Digol.

The movement was said to be pushing for greater administrative independence for Yusuf’s government, a development that fueled rumours of a possible power struggle within the Kwankwasiyya political family.

By Uzair Adam 

The New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP) has declared that its 2023 presidential candidate, Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, no longer has the party’s platform to contest against President Bola Tinubu or any other presidential hopeful in the upcoming 2027 elections.

This was announced in a statement on Saturday by the party’s National Chairman, Dr. Agbo Major, in response to comments made by Buba Galadima, who claimed that Kwankwaso would remain in the NNPP and contest the next presidential election on its ticket.

Galadima had dismissed speculations that Kwankwaso was defecting to the All Progressives Congress (APC), insisting the former governor would strategically stay in the NNPP until the 2027 political whistle is blown. He also urged Nigerians to support Kwankwaso’s presidential ambition.

However, Dr. Agbo refuted Galadima’s claims, stressing that both Kwankwaso and Galadima had long been expelled from the party for anti-party activities and therefore could not speak for or use the NNPP for any political ambition.

“Our Memorandum of Understanding with the Kwankwasiyya Movement, led by Kwankwaso, ended shortly after the 2023 elections. We cannot allow Kwankwaso back into the NNPP because of the internal crises and legal battles he caused,” Agbo stated.

He alleged that Kwankwaso attempted to hijack the party by changing its logo to reflect the Kwankwasiyya movement’s identity, which was later reversed through court intervention after a controversial convention in Abuja.

Agbo also dismissed the possibility of Kwankwaso receiving another automatic ticket from the NNPP, stating that such a privilege would not be granted again.

“Kwankwaso is known for joining only political parties where he can control leadership. But here, that era is gone. His ambition is dead on arrival,” Agbo added.

While affirming Kwankwaso’s constitutional right to contest any office, Agbo emphasised that the NNPP would not be involved in any antagonism against the President or other political parties.

He said the party is now considering fresh aspirants ahead of 2027 and will ensure due process and transparency in selecting its next presidential candidate.

“The NNPP has moved on. We will not be drawn into needless controversies. We advise Kwankwaso to form his own party if he still wants to pursue his ambitions,” Agbo concluded.

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 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 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.

Former Minister of Interior Rauf Aregbesola and ex-Kano State Governor Rabiu Kwankwaso recently met in Lagos for a “strategic” discussion in preparation for the 2027 general elections.

“Aregbesola and Kwankwaso just completed a marathon meeting in Lagos where they strategised on the 2027 election,” a source within the party disclosed.

This development follows the recent exit of Aregbesola’s political group, Omoluabi Progressives, from the All Progressives Congress (APC).

Abosede Oluwaseun, the group’s spokesperson, explained that their decision to leave was due to issues such as “ostracisation from the party, suspension and expulsion of leaders without fair hearing, and continuous denigration of the structure.”

Shortly after, the APC in Osun State expelled Aregbesola, citing alleged anti-party activities. Aregbesola, who served as Osun’s governor from 2010 to 2018 under the APC and later as a minister in former President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration, now finds himself at the center of discussions on forming a coalition to challenge the ruling party in the upcoming elections.

In recent months, key opposition figures have been holding similar strategic meetings. In November, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar met with Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP) over breakfast in Adamawa.

In January, Nasir el-Rufai, former Kaduna governor, and Hamza Al-Mustapha, a former aide to the late Sani Abacha, convened in Abuja alongside other politicians in a meeting organized by Shehu Gabam, the national chairman of the Social Democratic Party (SDP).

Kwankwaso, who was the New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) presidential candidate in the 2023 elections, has remained a significant figure in opposition politics.

Meanwhile, Ajuji Ahmed, the NNPP chairman, recently stated that while the party is not currently engaged in coalition discussions, it is open to the possibility in the future.