Tinubu’s Abacha tactics against opposition, By Farooq Kperogi - Newstrends
Connect with us

Opinion

Tinubu’s Abacha tactics against opposition, By Farooq Kperogi

Published

on

Tinubu proved me wrong in Kwara, By Farooq Kperogi

Tinubu’s Abacha tactics against opposition, By Farooq Kperogi

Although structural, political, and economic conditions appear to constrain any credibly concerted impediment to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s 2027 reelection chances, at least from my admittedly imperfect reading of the auguries, Tinubu still seems so insecure that he is borrowing a leaf from former Head of State Sani Abacha, his arch enemy, to annihilate the opposition and smooth his path to reelection.

There are at least three reasons why I think the odds are, at least for now, in Tinubu’s favor.

First, the opposition hasn’t coalesced around a single, powerful, unifying candidate, such as the APC did with Muhammadu Buhari in 2015, less than a year before the next presidential election. Meanwhile, Tinubu is already the undisputed candidate of his party and has effectively been in campaign mode, with all the advantages that incumbency confers.

Second, Tinubu’s economic policies have so pauperized a vast swath of the electorate that many voters are even more susceptible to financial inducement in exchange for their votes than at any time in recent memory. In a context where hunger and desperation shape electoral behavior, the moral calculus of voting changes.

Given that Tinubu commands a larger financial war chest than any individual opposition figure and perhaps more than all of them combined, he is better positioned to prevail in a contest defined by voter inducement. It often makes little difference to voters that the source of their hardship is also the source of the money offered to temporarily alleviate it.

READ ALSO:

Third, the institutions of the state that determine electoral outcomes inspire little confidence in their independence. INEC, which showed flashes of autonomy during Professor Attahiru Jega’s tenure, particularly in overseeing the 2015 transition, no longer enjoys the same level of public trust.

The judiciary, which ought to serve as the final arbiter of electoral disputes, is widely perceived as susceptible to political manipulation. Whether this perception is entirely fair is beside the point; what matters is that it is widespread and shapes expectations about electoral outcomes.

Given these seemingly insurmountable advantages, one might expect Tinubu to sit comfortably and await what could amount to an electoral formality. Yet his actions suggest a deep, crippling anxiety about 2027. He appears determined not just to win an election but to eliminate the possibility of a meaningful contest.

He is stealthily but systematically weakening all the political parties that could provide viable platforms for his opponents in 2027.

The Labor Party, which rode the crest of the wave of Peter Obi’s popularity to emerge from near obscurity to national prominence in 2024, has been mired in irresolvably debilitating internal crises. These crises may have internal origins, but their persistence and intensity have effectively neutralized the party as a coherent opposition force.

The Peoples Democratic Party is also deeply fractured. Through the outsized influence of FCT Minister Nyesom Wike, who retains significant leverage within the party despite serving in an APC administration, the PDP has been thrown into a prolonged internal dissension that has eroded its capacity to function as a credible opposition platform.

It would be an exaggeration to say that only APC sympathizers remain in the PDP, but it is accurate to say that its internal divisions have weakened its ability to mount a coordinated challenge.

READ ALSO:

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) had begun to present itself as a refuge for politicians displaced from the PDP, the Labour Party, and even factions within the APC. That possibility now appears imperiled by an emerging leadership crisis.

While David Mark is widely recognized as the party’s national chairman, Nafiu Bala Gombe, a former deputy national chairman, is contesting that leadership in court. Given how the courts have ruled in the past in respect of the PDP and LP, which many people suspect is induced from the Tinubu camp, it won’t come to me as a surprise if Gombe gets judicial imprimatur to displace Mark.

Allegations that Gombe is aligned with Tinubu or with interests sympathetic to him come primarily from partisan sources within the ADC and have not been independently substantiated. Still, given the pattern observable in other opposition parties, such suspicions are not entirely surprising. If the courts eventually validate Gombe’s claim, the ADC could become inhospitable to the very opposition figures who had begun to see it as a viable platform, as a safe political asylum.

The cumulative effect of these developments is that major opposition figures such as Atiku Abubakar, Peter Obi, and Rotimi Amaechi may find themselves without stable or credible party platforms on which to base presidential bids. Even if parties remain on paper, they risk becoming hollow shells, fielding “dummy” candidates who pose no real threat and merely sustain the illusion of competition. That’s banana-republic-level perversion of basic democratic norms.

This trajectory calls to mind the 1998 transition program under Sani Abacha. In that case, the regime licensed and controlled the only legal political parties, suppressed dissent, and orchestrated a process in which all five parties eventually adopted Abacha as their sole presidential candidate. It was a carefully managed political ritual dubiously designed to legitimize continued rule. Abacha didn’t get elected because he died before that could happen.

Nigeria is not under military rule, and the present circumstances are not, by any means, wholly identical. But the logic of narrowing the political field to the point where competition becomes illusory bears an uncomfortable resemblance.

There is no point in pretending to be a democracy if something as basic as the latitude to run for the office of president is strewn with avoidable cataracts and oxbow lakes, to paraphrase Nigeria’s most famous sesquipedalian Patrick Obahiagbon.

The danger for Tinubu is that such a strategy, even if it succeeds electorally, could strip his reelection of the faintest scintilla of credibility and render his administration vulnerable to an enervating crisis of legitimacy, including possible international scrutiny. Electoral victory is one thing; perceived legitimacy is another, and the latter is harder to manufacture.

It is true that incumbents often seek every available advantage. Olusegun Obasanjo’s 2003 reelection was marred by widely reported irregularities. He was so intent on extracting electoral insurance against Muhammadu Buhari in 2003(even though Buhari was actually unelectable at that time) that he got more votes in native Ogun State than there were registered voters. But at least he allowed Buhari to run against him on a prominent political platform.

Goodluck Jonathan also benefited from incumbency advantages. Like Obasanjo, he faced recognizable opposition candidates on functioning party platforms. Even in 2019, when Atiku Abubakar mounted a serious challenge to Muhammadu Buhari, the contest, despite its controversies, retained the basic structure of competitive politics.

Tinubu risks earning a dubious distinction as Nigeria’s only civilian president who appears unwilling to tolerate even the minimum conditions for credible electoral competition. That is a striking departure for a man whose political reputation was built, in part, on opposition to military authoritarianism.

He still has time to recalibrate. The more prudent path is to allow opposition parties to organize freely and to make his case for reelection on the basis of his record. That, more than any tactical maneuvering, is what confers durable political legitimacy.

Tinubu’s Abacha tactics against opposition, By Farooq Kperogi

Farooq Kperogi is a renowned Nigerian columnist and United States-based professor of Journalism.

Loading

Opinion

Tinubu proved me wrong in Kwara, By Farooq Kperogi

Published

on

Tinubu proved me wrong in Kwara, By Farooq Kperogi

Tinubu proved me wrong in Kwara, By Farooq Kperogi

My April 18, 2026, column titled “Tinubu’s Yoruba Agenda Risks Deep Rupture in Kwara” used privileged information I received from a self-described Yoruba irredentist to advance a narrative that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu had planned to impose a Yoruba candidate from Kwara South as Kwara State’s APC governorship candidate at the expense of the Borgu people in the state, who are found in Baruten and Kaiama local governments and of whom he is the Jagaba, that is, champion.

Well, after surviving several fits and starts, maneuvers, negotiations, disappointments and unpleasant surprises, a Borgu man from Baruten, Yakubu Danladi Salihu, who is the current Speaker of the Kwara State House of Assembly, emerged as APC’s governorship candidate.

Since it is difficult to imagine anyone emerging as APC’s governorship candidate in today’s party structure without at least Tinubu’s acquiescence, several Tinubu supporters privately wrote to challenge me to openly admit that I was wrong in my assumption that he would impose a certain Bashir Omolaja Bolarinwa on the state in furtherance of his “Yoruba agenda.”

They alleged that I wrote my column out of “hate” for Tinubu. I do not “hate” Tinubu. Hate is a mental and emotional burden that I have no capacity to carry for anyone. As much as I have been his critic, I have also defended Tinubu in the past, even when no one else did, when I was convinced that he was unfairly attacked. My impassioned, consistent defense of the validity and legitimacy of his Chicago State University certificate, which drew false accusations that I had been compromised, is a case in point.

And anyone who has followed my public commentary for more than two decades will concede that I am never shy about publicly owning up to my mistakes, apologizing when I err and correcting my assumptions when irrefutable, overwhelming evidence contradicts them. I recognize that I am only human and that my imperfections are the biggest proof of my humanity. So, I was going to write this column even if I wasn’t prompted by private, angry messages challenging me to do so.

Of the several messages I received after Malam Yakubu Danladi Salihu was announced as the winner of the Kwara APC primary election, the one by Pastor John Dara, former presidential candidate in the 2011 and 2019 election cycles and chairman of the African Development Investment Limited, was the most conciliatory.

READ ALSO:

“Please do a follow up article to thank President Tinubu and Governor Abdulrazaq for supporting the emergence of a Kwara North Governorship Candidate. They both did,” Pastor Dara, who is Yoruba from Kwara South, wrote on May 22. “We also need to call on the people of Kwara State to support this just and positive development.”

I hesitated to write straight away because of the uncertainties that attended the primaries and the resistance, however feeble, that Salihu’s emergence appeared to be generating in a few places. What if I wrote and his victory was reversed?

But Oloriewe Raheem Adedoyin, former Kwara State Information Commissioner and veteran journalist, implied in a June 17 article in the Vanguard that Salihu’s victory is sealed. It is typical in any political contest for people who lose out to discredit the outcomes and for those who win to acclaim them. “The primaries in Kwara are no less credible than those conducted in Lagos or elsewhere,” wrote Adedoyin, who is from Kwara South.

Now that it is fairly certain that both the Kwara State governor and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu are committed to course correction, representational equity and inclusivity, I won’t mince words in saying they deserve plaudits. Kwara North (and Borgu in particular) would never have produced APC’s governorship candidate without them.

It would be too self-important to assume that the president had a change of mind after reading my column, which he probably didn’t even read. But on the off chance that he or the people close to him did and decided to change course partly because of it, it demonstrates admirable sensitivity to public opinion and reasoned arguments.

It didn’t matter to me who between Senator Sadiq Suleiman Umar, Kwara North’s senator who hails from Kaiama, and Yakubu Danladi Salihu, who is from Baruten, won the APC nomination. They are both sons of Borgu in Kwara who are as qualified as anyone who has ever been governor of the state. I am glad that in thanking President Tinubu after his announcement as the winner of the APC governorship primary, Salihu acknowledged that Tinubu has lived up to his title as the Jagaba of Borgu.

Both the governor and the president were obviously under competing pressures from several constituencies, but they resisted them and chose to throw their weight behind a candidate from a part of the state that has never produced a governor since the state’s creation in 1967 and that has remained in its geographic, political and symbolic margins ever since.

It is gratifying that a wide swath of people from the state recognize the imperative of the inclusion of its most peripheral part into the mainstream. After the publication of my April 18 column, countless people from Ilorin Emirate reached out to me to say they saw merit in my arguments and were committed to remediation.

It still honestly and pleasantly shocks me that so many people from Ilorin Emirate concede that the remainder of Borgu in Kwara State should produce the next governor of the state.

My pleasant surprise springs from my knowledge that it takes conscious effort to acknowledge that you are the beneficiary of unfair advantages and to willingly let go of those advantages. Of course, it would be unrealistic to expect everyone to be on the same page on this issue, but my sense is that the vast majority of people in both Ilorin Emirate and Kwara South are sold on this.

Perhaps it’s not altogether out of place that most people in Ilorin Emirate support the shift of power to the North. After all, they have produced the governor for 19 of the 27 years since the restoration of civilian rule in 1999.

Plus, many Ilorin indigenes, my younger sister’s husband being an example, have distant Borgu ancestral roots, even if they are now, for all practical purposes, Yoruba people, and therefore may have some emotional investment in the emergence of a Borgu person as governor.

But the fact that many prominent and not so prominent people from Kwara South are on board is the bigger pleasant surprise for me. Kwara South has had only one 8-year shot at the governorship since 1999. That many of them think conceding the governorship to a part of the state that has never produced a governor for even a split second is worthwhile is commendable.

You won’t appreciate what I am driving at until you realize that there are many multi-ethnic states in Nigeria where just one ethnic group dominates the governorship in perpetuity.

An example that stands out like a sore thumb is Benue State. Since the state’s creation in 1976, every elected civilian governor has come from the Tiv-speaking part of the state. The governorship has never gone to Idoma, Igede or any other non-Tiv group in a civilian election. So, every child in Benue who isn’t Tiv has little reason to imagine that they could someday become governor.

In complex, transitional, multi-ethnic and plural countries like Nigeria, conscious efforts should be made to formalize strategies for the symbolic inclusion of all collective identities in governance structures. That is the only way people can relate to governance and feel a vicarious identification with power and authority.

It obviously is not a substitute for good governance, accountability, transparency, performance and improvement in the lot of the people, but it’s an indispensable precondition for getting every citizen invested in the business of government.

Kwara has now shown that even in a country where exclusion often masquerades as democracy and “meritocracy,” power can still be made to travel to the margins when conscience, pressure and enlightened self-interest meet.

 

Kperogi is a renowned columnist and United States-based professor of journalism.

Tinubu proved me wrong in Kwara, By Farooq Kperogi

Loading

Continue Reading

Opinion

If Nigeria Is Not Divided, We Will Never Have Any Sense in the North

Published

on

If Nigeria Is Not Divided, We Will Never Have Any Sense in the North

By Mohammed Bello Doka

There is a rumour circulating through Nigeria’s political underbelly that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, after completing his second term in office, is seriously considering the unthinkable: the formal division of the country. Could it be that the man from the South-West, who many believe has never fully embraced the idea of one Nigeria, has grown tired of the endless strain on our collective sanity? Could it be that the Northern experiment, which began with such promise in 1960, has finally revealed itself as a failed enterprise of monumental proportions?

And here is the question that should keep every Northerner awake at night: if the sword of division never falls, will the North ever produce a single ounce of sense?

My answer, as bitter as it may sound, is no.

Let us begin with the Northern elite. Their obsession with the federal purse is not merely an obsession; it is a pathology. For decades, the so-called leaders of the North have clung to federal revenue allocation like a drowning man clutching a piece of driftwood. They have been paid, rewarded, and accommodated repeatedly. What have they offered in return?

A region where children beg for food while governors travel in private jets. A region where life expectancy remains among the lowest in the country while politicians build mansions in Abuja, Dubai, and beyond. The Northern elite have turned federal allocations into a feeding bottle and have sucked it dry.

They have neglected the welfare of their people, failed to protect lives and property, and presided over a situation in which banditry, kidnapping, and insecurity have flourished. When villages are attacked and families are displaced, where are these leaders? They are often in Abuja, lobbying for more federal allocations, more appointments, and more privileges. To many of them, more public money simply translates into more wives, more mansions, and more luxury.

Then we have the educated class of the North. What a tragedy they have become.

Armed with degrees from Ahmadu Bello University, the University of Maiduguri, Bayero University Kano, and even prestigious foreign institutions, many have done little with their knowledge beyond decorating their résumés and feeding their egos. They sit in air-conditioned offices, write elegant policy papers that gather dust on shelves, and remain silent while their communities crumble.

READ ALSO:

They know the solutions. They understand the economics. They see the decline unfolding in slow motion. Yet they refuse to speak, refuse to act, and refuse to lead. They have traded conscience for comfort and duty for government vehicles, foreign trips, generous allowances, and plaques celebrating questionable achievements. The educated Northern elite has become one of the most disappointing and self-serving classes in contemporary Nigeria.

Then there is the business elite.

Their philosophy appears simple: profit above all else. They have watched their region descend into chaos and, in many cases, found ways to benefit from it. Displaced communities require food. Insecurity creates opportunities for middlemen. Crisis becomes commerce.

Rather than investing substantially in agriculture, solid minerals, manufacturing, renewable energy, and other productive sectors that could transform the region, many prefer quick profits and short-term gains. They are not builders of lasting prosperity; they are beneficiaries of dysfunction.

Then we come to the so-called Yan Boko—the educated youth who should have become the vanguard of reform.

Instead, many have become willing instruments of political manipulation. They spread division disguised as conviction and bigotry disguised as piety. They have learned little from education except how to argue more eloquently and hate more efficiently. They march proudly toward their own ruin, armed with polished English and intellectual arrogance, while contributing little to meaningful change.

Let me be clear: I do not place primary blame on traditional rulers for the current crisis.

Their powers were stripped away long ago by military decrees and constitutional arrangements. Today, an emir cannot raise an army, levy taxes, or even discipline a district head without government approval. Traditional rulers have largely become ceremonial custodians of culture with very limited authority over governance and security.

However, I do blame many Islamic scholars.

You have failed, and failed spectacularly.

You spend your days arguing over minor ritual differences—whether a finger should be raised during supplication, how a beard should be worn, or which sect possesses the correct interpretation of doctrine. Qadiriyya versus Tijaniyya. Izala versus Darika. Endless disputes over labels and loyalties.

Meanwhile, the core teachings of Islam—justice, knowledge, accountability, compassion, and the advancement of society—receive far less attention. Where is the emphasis on education? Where is the call for economic productivity? Where is the reminder that Allah does not change the condition of a people until they change what is within themselves?

Too many scholars have transformed religion into a tool of control rather than enlightenment. An ignorant follower is easier to command. An informed follower asks questions, and questions threaten authority.

Although traditional rulers possess little real power today, many have also contributed to their own decline. Some have traded prestige and influence for financial rewards and political patronage. As a result, public respect has diminished. A traditional institution that cannot protect its people or meaningfully influence governance struggles to maintain moral authority.

And what of the ordinary Northern man?

He, too, has failed himself.

Too often, he has neglected the pursuit of knowledge. Too often, he has accepted sentiment in place of reason and emotion in place of evidence. He has allowed himself to become a tool in the hands of politicians and religious opportunists. He applauds leaders who mortgage his future and supports systems that perpetuate his own suffering.

The tragedy is that the North sits atop resources capable of transforming not only Nigeria but much of Africa.

Agriculture: vast grazing lands and fertile soil suitable for groundnuts, cotton, sorghum, maize, rice, and livestock production. The North could feed much of West Africa.

Solid minerals: gold in Zamfara, tin in Plateau, lead and zinc deposits across several states, limestone, barite, and countless other resources that remain underdeveloped.

Rare earth elements: strategic minerals that power smartphones, batteries, and modern technologies.

Energy resources: coal deposits, hydroelectric potential along major rivers, and abundant solar radiation capable of powering entire cities.

Human capital: a youthful population that, if properly educated and empowered, could become one of Africa’s greatest assets.

Yet what do we see?

Farmers driven from their lands by insecurity. Illegal mining operations enriching foreign interests while destroying the environment. Abandoned energy projects. Unemployment. Migration. Frustration. A generation either fleeing abroad or falling into cycles of crime, extremism, and hopelessness.

Compare this with other countries. Botswana discovered diamonds and built one of Africa’s most stable economies. Chile transformed copper into national prosperity. Norway turned oil wealth into a sovereign wealth fund designed to benefit future generations.

The North possesses resources comparable to, and in some cases greater than, those that transformed these nations. Yet it remains trapped in poverty, insecurity, and underdevelopment.

What the North needs is a baptism of fire—not the fire of violence, but the fire of a profound and unavoidable awakening.

The comfortable lies must be shattered. The false prophets must be challenged. The educated class must leave its comfort zones and engage directly with society’s problems. The business elite must contribute meaningfully to development. Ordinary citizens must recognize that no saviour is coming. They must save themselves.

That is why the title stands.

If Nigeria is not divided, we may never develop any sense in the North. Division would force the region to stand on its own feet. There would be no federal purse to blame, no Southern revenues to contest, and no convenient excuses. There would only be the North, its people, and its resources.

Would we survive? Or would we collapse?

The answer to that question would reveal whether we are capable of genuine self-reliance.

Perhaps separation is the only lesson the North has not yet ignored, resisted, or corrupted. Perhaps the breaking of Nigeria would force a long-overdue confrontation with our failures. It is a harsh prescription, but harsh illnesses sometimes require harsh remedies.

So let the rumour be true.

Let the North stand alone and prove its worth.

Because only when dependence ends will accountability begin. Only when external lifelines disappear will we discover whether we possess the wisdom, discipline, and determination required for survival.

My deepest fear is that we do not.

And if we do not, then division will merely expose what has always existed beneath the surface: a region blessed with immense wealth and potential, yet crippled by greed, complacency, and self-inflicted decline, waiting for the final verdict of history.

Mohammed Bello Doka

Abuja Network News

bellodoka82@gmail.com

If Nigeria Is Not Divided, We Will Never Have Any Sense in the North

Loading

Continue Reading

Opinion

Death of Retired General in Captivity Sparks Fresh Concerns Over Nigeria’s Security Crisis

Published

on

Mallam Ibrahim Agunbiade

Death of Retired General in Captivity Sparks Fresh Concerns Over Nigeria’s Security Crisis

The death of retired Major General Rabe Abubakar while in the custody of bandits has reignited concerns over the worsening security situation in Nigeria, with stakeholders calling for urgent and decisive measures to address the growing threat posed by criminal groups across the country.

In a commentary released on Friday, public affairs analyst Mallam Ibrahim Agunbiade described the late military officer’s death as a troubling reflection of the country’s deepening insecurity, stressing that the incident should serve as a wake-up call for government authorities and security agencies.

Major General Abubakar, who reportedly dedicated decades of service to the Nigerian military and contributed to counterinsurgency efforts, was abducted alongside his wife while travelling in Katsina State. He later died while in captivity, according to information released by the state government.

The analyst noted that the incident raises serious concerns about the safety of citizens, arguing that if a retired senior military officer could fall victim to banditry, ordinary Nigerians remain even more vulnerable.

The Katsina State Government had described the development as a dark moment and reiterated the need for stronger collective action against criminal elements operating in various parts of the country.

Agunbiade emphasized that beyond official statements, the tragedy underscores the suffering experienced by victims’ families, many of whom endure prolonged periods of uncertainty, fear and grief while awaiting the release of abducted loved ones.

READ ALSO:

He also referenced the reported death of Islamic scholar Alhaji Muhammad Maibarga in bandits’ captivity in Kebbi State, saying the incidents demonstrate that insecurity affects people across all social, religious and professional backgrounds.

According to him, farmers, traders, students, traditional rulers, religious leaders, security personnel and other citizens have all become targets of criminal attacks in recent years.

The Defence Headquarters had earlier explained that it refrained from making public comments on the abduction of the retired General because rescue efforts were ongoing. Military authorities also pledged that those responsible for the crime would be brought to justice.

However, Agunbiade maintained that the latest tragedy highlights the urgent need for a more effective and coordinated national response to insecurity.

He stressed that tackling banditry, kidnapping and terrorism requires more than military action alone, advocating improved intelligence gathering, stronger inter-agency collaboration, enhanced protection for vulnerable communities and sustained efforts to dismantle criminal networks.

The commentator further urged Nigerians to view insecurity as a national challenge rather than a regional or ethnic issue, noting that victims cut across all religious, ethnic and social divides.

He called on government at all levels to prioritize the protection of lives and property, insisting that the death of Major General Abubakar should not be treated as just another headline but as a reminder of the urgent need to restore security and public confidence across the country.

Death of Retired General in Captivity Sparks Fresh Concerns Over Nigeria’s Security Crisis

Loading

Continue Reading

Trending