BETWEEN GOV ABBA KABIR YUSUF AND RABIU KWANKWASO
The fallout of the conflict echoes familiar patterns from Kwankwaso’s past, particularly his bitter split with Abdullahi Ganduje. Once again, a protégé has chosen a different path, leaving many wondering: is Abba Kabir Yusuf’s (AKY) move a calculated step towards independence or a strategic checkmate in a long political chess game?
In a subdued and emotional interview with BBC Hausa since AKY’s exit from the NNPP, Kwankwaso expressed deep hurt, describing the defection as an unimaginable act of betrayal. He insisted Kano remains NNPP territory and warned that Abba would face consequences, accusing him of “handing over Kano’s mandate to the Gandujiyya camp.”
Kwankwaso claimed the issues leading to the defection could have been resolved through dialogue and repeatedly questioned what went wrong and who was to blame. Yet his continued public lament only reinforces a perception of desperation, as though he fears losing something more than political relevance.
While his emotional appeal may resonate with loyalists, Kwankwaso is hardly alone in having felt betrayed in Kano’s turbulent political history. Ironically, many accuse him of the very conduct he now condemns.
Kwankwaso’s political ascent in 1999 was aided by figures such as Abubakar Rimi, Hamisu Musa, and Musa Gwadabe. Once in power, he dismantled the structures that supported him, side-lining these benefactors and rendering them politically irrelevant. None truly recovered from that fallout.
History appears to be repeating itself. A leader who once thrived on alliances has repeatedly abandoned them after consolidating power. Ali Sani Madaki has openly accused Kwankwaso of hypocrisy, arguing that someone with such a record lacks the moral authority to lecture others on loyalty or betrayal.
This pattern extended beyond Kano.In 2019, Kwankwaso was accused of distancing himself from Atiku Abubakar after securing his own political interests in the state—an act many viewed as a serious breach of trust.
Compounding this is Kwankwaso’s long history of party switching: from PDP to APC, back to PDP, and now NNPP. These moves, often driven by personal ambition, weaken his credibility when criticizing defections by others—especially when his political protégé followed him through many of those same transitions.
Yet history shows that loyalty to Kwankwaso rarely guarantees lasting trust. Many who once defended him eventually fell out after warning of his autocratic and self-centred leadership style. Figures like Rabiu Suleiman Bichi and Professor Hafiz Abubakar—who even resigned as Deputy Governor to demonstrate loyalty raised these concerns long before they became widely acknowledged.
Kwankwaso would be wise to stop issuing coded messages that could provoke damaging disclosures. The stakes are high. Ultimately, the decline of Kwankwaso’s political dynasty is not the result of external opposition but internal decay.
A movement built on control rather than mutual respect cannot endure. The ladder that lifted him was kicked away not by enemies, but by the memories of those who felt used, discarded, and betrayed. What we are witnessing today may not be betrayal at all—but karma, long delayed, finally coming full circle.
Abba Dukawa, Abuja
Page2
NIGERIA’S COUP PLOT CONTROVERSY
Felix Oladeji argues that the issue raises question of transparency, trust and balanced communication of national security affairs
Recent developments surrounding an alleged plot within the Nigerian military to overthrow President Bola Ahmed Tinubu have thrust questions of security, governance, transparency, and public trust back into the national spotlight. In a statement released on January 26, 2026, the Defence Headquarters (DHQ) confirmed that investigations into the conduct of 16 Nigerian Army officers uncovered actions inconsistent with military ethics and professional standards, including allegations of plotting to overthrow the government. The findings, the DHQ said, have been forwarded to appropriate authorities and may lead to disciplinary and judicial proceedings under established military regulations.
The confirmation marks a significant shift from official positions in late 2025, when the DHQ categorically dismissed reports linking cancelled national events including Nigeria’s 65th Independence Day parade to coup rumours, insisting that the investigations involving the officers were routine disciplinary matters and not related to any attempt to destabilise constitutional governance. This return to the public stage of a sensitive matter raises critical questions about the nature of civil-military relations, democratic accountability, and the communication of national security affairs in an era of heightened political scrutiny.
Nigeria’s history is no stranger to military interventions in politics. Though the nation has maintained civilian rule since 1999, episodes of rumour, fear, and speculation about coups often fuelled by opaque communication and muted official responses continue to test public confidence. The handling of the latest episode illustrates a deeper challenge: the gap between official narrative management and the public’s need for credible, consistent information. When denials are followed by confirmations, citizens are left to wonder not only about the facts on the ground, but about the transparency and motives of those charged with defending constitutional order.
This controversy also underscores the importance of clear and timely communication from state institutions. In democratic societies, the management of national security information must be balanced carefully against public interest — protecting genuine operational confidentiality while avoiding the kind of speculation that erodes trust and fuels anxiety. The African Democratic Congress (ADC), for instance, has previously called on the government to clarify such reports transparently, emphasising that any legitimate threat should be communicated in ways that preserve public confidence rather than deepen uncertainty.
Nigeria’s armed forces, for their part, have long asserted their loyalty to constitutional governance and civilian authority, reaffirming their commitment to national stability amid swirling rumours and misinformation. When former reports denied coup links, the DHQ repeatedly emphasised that the arrests and investigations were disciplinary and unrelated to any plot — framing the armed forces as an institution loyal to democracy and rule of law. Yet the subsequent revelation of confirmed allegations – however procedurally characterised; highlights the challenges inherent in managing sensitive information in fragile political contexts.
The broader context within West Africa further complicates public perceptions. Recent attempted coups in neighbouring states, and Nigeria’s own role in regional security operations; such as troop deployments in response to instability in Benin Republic — remind citizens and policymakers alike that democratic resilience cannot be taken for granted in the region. These regional dynamics make transparent governance and disciplined institutional communication all the more necessary at home.
At its core, this episode is not only about the specifics of military discipline or internal investigations; it is about trust in democratic institutions. A thriving democracy depends on robust oversight, credible communication, and citizen confidence that state actors are accountable and that national security challenges are addressed within constitutional bounds.
As Nigeria navigates this moment, it should reaffirm its commitment not only to constitutional order but to transparent governance ensuring that allegations, investigations, and official responses strengthen rather than weaken the public’s faith in democratic norms. Delivering clarity without compromising legitimate security procedures is a delicate balance, but one that is essential for democratic consolidation in a nation still striving to align its governance practices with the expectations of its people and the demands of a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.
Oladeji writes from
Lagos
