Connect with us

Opinions

EL-RUFAI: PORTRAIT OF TINUBU’S HATCHET MAN

Published

on

EL-RUFAI: PORTRAIT OF TINUBU’S HATCHET MAN

BY CHRIS GYANG

Few political leaders in present-day Nigeria have had the privilege of influencing and benefitting from the Buhari dispensation the way Nasiru Ahmed El-Rufai has done. Not until recently, though.

In most of the last eight years that he has been governor with his kinsman, Buhari, as president, El-Rufai has carried on in the true tradition of those core northern political elite who sufficiently believe they own Nigeria.

No wonder, Bola Ahmed Tinubu (the infamous Emi lekan exponent), has conscripted him to serve as one of the key hatchet men in leading the campaign towards his emergence as president on Saturday.

What are El-Rufai’s true colours? What are some of his antecedents and why is he now bellyaching about a sinister plot from within the APC to deny him his heart’s desire of making Tinubu president?

Perhaps by gaining little insights into the temperament and character of this man, we may be able to get a greater understanding of the individual he is so tenaciously rooting for – Tinubu. Is there any possibility that they could be birds of the same feather?

On February 5, 2019, El-Rufai went on national television to issue a rather morbid threat to foreigners who may want to ‘meddle’ in that year’s general elections. The United States, European Union and the United Kingdom had expressed doubts about the credibility of the polls. President Buhari had just sacked the Chief Justice of the Federation, Walter Onoghen, under very murky circumstances.

The US, EU and the UK saw that as an affront on the independence of the judiciary. So did local rights groups, other political parties and organisations which drew the attention of the international community to this arrant disregard for the separation of powers and due process.

But El-Rufai fumed: “Those that are calling for anyone to come and intervene in Nigeria, we are waiting for the person that would come and intervene, they would go back in body bags.”

Yet, it is this same El-Rufai that is today threatening brimstone and fire because of what he and their supporters perceive as President Buhari’s disobedience of a Supreme Court order regarding the currency swap.

PM NEWS reported on February 17, 2023: “Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai has attacked President Muhammadu Buhari for flagrantly violating the Supreme Court’s order that the old notes should remain legal tender pending the determination of the case before it.”

Buhari had in a nationwide broadcast directed that only the N200 notes would continue to be legal tender till April 10 while the old N500 and N1,000 would no longer be accepted in accordance with an earlier order by the Central Bank of Nigeria.

But El-Rufai gave this counter order in a statewide broadcast: “For the avoidance of doubt, all the old and new notes shall remain in use as legal tender in Kaduna State until the Supreme Court of Nigeria decides otherwise. I therefore appeal to all residents of Kaduna State to continue to use the old and new notes side by side without any fear.”

Only a month or two ago, Rufai had been one of the closest allies of the president. Their bond was extraordinarily unique because it was strengthened by the shared primeval impulses of tribe and religion. How duplicitous politicians can be!

On July 15, 2012, at precisely 7.51 PM, El-Rufai tweeted this insidious threat in response to the crisis in Plateau State between his Fulani kinsmen and indigenous communities: “We will write this for all to read. Anyone, soldier or not, that kills the Fulani, takes a loan repayable one day no matter how long it takes.”

Once again, that disturbing warning rattled Nigerians, even his own Fulani tribesmen on whose behalf he thought he was writing as it portrayed them as an unforgiving and violent people. Which was why, on May 6, 2021, he was still pressured to clarify that potentially inflammable statement during a webinar organised by the Africa Leadership Group.

He was unrepentant: “If a Fulani man dies in war, it is different. If a Fulani man is arrested by the authorities and convicted, it is not an issue. What the Fulani never forgets is when he is innocently targeted and killed and the authorities do nothing. He will never forget and he will come back for revenge. This is it.”

It is this extremist posturing by political leaders and elite such as El-Rufai that the fiery Bishop Hassan Kukah was referring to when he said: “Today, in Nigeria, the noble religion of Islam has convulsed. It has become associated with some of the worst fears among our people….

“This is because, in all of this, neither Islam nor the north can identify any real benefits from these years that have been consumed by the locusts that this government has unleashed on our country. The Fulani, his innocent kinsmen, have become the subject of opprobrium, ridicule, calumny and obloquy.”

Notwithstanding, the governor had made a final declaration on retributive justice. But from whose perspective and in whose interest? Pray, does retaliation for continously and deliberately grazing your cattle on a poor subsistence farmer’s mature crops constitute an injustice to you?

And are the wanton killings, destroying the possessions of indigenous peoples, sacking them and occupying their ancestral lands proportionate to the supposed injustice done the Fulani? Those who have lost countless loved ones, the wounded and dispossessed all over the country who have tasted, and are still experiencing, that raw and brutal brand of justice still seek answers to these questions.

However, Mr. El-Rufai once again resorted to this ruse of an eye for an eye to justify and make light some of the most horrendous acts of brigandage visited on citizens in recent times. He explained away the Fulani aggression against the indigenous peoples of Southern Kaduna as retaliation for crimes committed against them.

In December 2016, he claimed, “Many of these [Fulani] people were killed, cattle lost and they organised and came back to revenge. We got a group of people that were going round, trying to trace some of these people from Cameroon, Niger Republic and so on to tell them that there is a new governor who is Fulani like them and has no problem paying compensations for lives lost and he is begging you to stop the killing.”

What the governor was trying to tell the world was that, first, the Fulani attacking the indigenous communities were also on revenge missions which, as we have seen above, was justified; two, they were mainly from neighbouring West African countries known to El-Rufai and his government; three, the government was now begging them to stop the mayhem because one of them, a Fulani man, had become governor; and four, they were paid monetary reparations for the wrongs done them and their cattle.

The Senator representing Southern Kaduna, Danjuma La’ah, picked holes in the governor’s position. He maintained that at no time were the Fulani and their cattle from Mali, Niger, Chad, Cameroon and Senegal killed in Southern Kaduna.

He said: “This is silly and an absurd lie. Southern Kaduna is not a junction of these countries. So how could they have all converged on Southern Kaduna on their usual migration back home? The governor just invented this lie to make excuse for his imported murderous Fulani kindred to continue their extermination of our people and the occupation of our lands.”

As a result, Southern Kaduna today remains a simmering cauldron of violence, with the indigenous communities largely at the receiving end. In fact, due to what was seen as the governor’s failure to equitably address the Southern Kaduna massacres, the national body of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), the umbrella organisation of all lawyers in the country, withdrew an invitation to him as one of its key speakers at its 2020 annual general conference.

VANGUARD (August 20, 2020) reported that some lawyers on social media had condemned the inclusion of El-Rufai as one of the key speakers while human rights lawyer, Femi Falana, in a letter to the chair of the planning committee, called for his name to be struck off the list of speakers over the Southern Kaduna crisis.

“He [Falana] had also pleaded with the committee not to give its platform to someone who has a penchant for promoting impunity,” VANGUARD added.

Writing in TODAY’S CHALLENGE magazine (November 2022), J.M. Ade-Zaky, a Southern Kaduna man who was school mate with El-Rufai at Barewa College, Zaria, in 1974, disclosed that majority of their people deliberately refused to vote for El-Rufai in 2019.

“They voted the opposition party, probably due to the uncanny intuition that both he and his principal in Aso Rock would not be fair to them judging from antecedents,” he explained.

So, the governor took exception to this mass revolt that he assumed office “with a vengeance against [the people of] Southern Kaduna.” Here we go again, talking about vengeance. But it appears that we cannot avoid repeatedly coming back to this theme. Mr. Ade-Zaky dug up an incident that may explain this dark streak in the governor’s nature.

“In his autobiographical narrative, The Accidental Public Servant,” Ade-Zaky wrote, “Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai… tells an intriguing incident that unwittingly betrays his vindictive and unforgiving character, even as a youngster in primary school.”

In the book, he narrated how he tormented a bully called Sunday into total submission. Sunday had the misfortune of beating the diminutive boy on his first day at the LEA Primary School, Kawo, Kaduna.

He subjected Sunday to vicious and systematic physical and psychological violence and torture, even after he had apologized following the separate interventions of the class and head teachers, for more than three months. “Peace finally came when Sunday’s father met with El-Rufai’s uncle and pleaded a cease fire,” Ade-Zaky said.

He quoted an exultant El-Rufai explaining how that childhood victory enriched his adult life: “If I can give the bully a hard enough time, he would not do it again. Permanent peace comes about as a result of a resolute and uncompromising effort to define your position on a matter – and that is the way things are.” Once again, you can detect that incredible finality in his belief about the total efficacy and efficiency of such extreme measures.

This ploy later came in handy when he had problems with the late President Umaru Yar’Adua and the people he described as “ his cowardly gang” in the autobiography.

He explained: “To me, THE BEST WAY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM … WAS TO ATTACK SOMEONE HIGHER UP IN THE HEIRARCHY SUCH THAT EVEN IF I LOST, I STOOD A CHANCE WITH AN ATTACK WHERE HE IS MOST VULNERABLE…. But despite my natural instinct to attack Yar’Adua, I deferred to the wishes of my friends as I did not want to jeopardise whatever they had at stake…. I know this strikes some people as arrogance, but I AM REALLY NOT SENSITIVE TO PEOPLE NOT LIKING ME” (emphasis mine).

The germ of this particular approach is to viciously strike the leader in order to instil fear in his followers – “his cowardly gang.” Despite the fact that the risks may be enormous, the repercussions for likely failure do not matter as long as you succeed in creating the impression that you are bold and fearless. But, most significantly, you would have exposed the weaknesses of the leader.

See any resemblance between the above style of confronting your adversary and the way Tinubu has been challenging Buhari and his men since he got the impression that they may not be backing his presidential ambition?

Are there any similarities between the above tactic and the manner El-Rufai has also carried out his diatribe against President Buhari, his supporters and aides regarding the naira swap and the consequent brouhaha about that Supreme Court order on the legality or otherwise of the new and old currencies? Your guess is as good as mine.

According to Ade-Zaky, in furtherance of El-Rufai’s exclusionist agenda against the Southern Kaduna people, “he initiated certain measures inimical to their interests and well-being which would promote Islam and the welfare of Muslims in the state.” These included the 1984 plan to ban public preaching, which ultimately backfired because it became clear that it would likewise affect Muslims.

Also, in 2017 and 2018, he merged many districts in Southern Kaduna and changed the names and titles of some indigenous chiefdoms to emirates and some tribal chiefs to emirs. “It came to light that the governor asked the Muslim communities in the areas to demand for emirates, which they did,” Ade-Zaky noted.

“El-Rufai did not stop there,” he continued. “He moved to ‘restructure’ the political equation in the state by picking a fellow Muslim as his deputy in the 2019 election.” The Muslim-Muslim ticket that is one of the most contentious hallmarks of the Tinubu/Shettima presidential run was first tested during this Fourth Republic by El-Rufai in Kaduna State.

His rabid obsession with his racial and religious superiority had pushed him to upset, for the first time, the familiar and longstanding political apple cart of that racially and religiously diverse state where Christians and Muslims had hitherto shared power equitably and seamlessly.

To further push home the point that he had no qualms and that he had made up his mind to irrevocably and firmly institute Muslim dominance in the state’s political power structure, he proceeded to mastermind the emergence of a Muslim-Muslim ticket for his APC for the March 11 gubernatorial election.

Ade-Zaky also bemoaned El-Rufai’s imposition of Muslims as heads of the other two arms of government – the legislature and judiciary – and other key government ministries, departments and agencies as well as major government institutions.

“Similarly,” he revealed, “for the first time since the return of democratic governance in 1999, no minister was appointed from Southern Kaduna. All ministers representing the state in the federal cabinet have been Muslims….He has since declared Friday as public holiday in the state so that all government offices are closed to business.”

Considering Tinubu’s slavish subservience to the core north, for political capital and expediency, could El-Rufai have suggested the Muslim-Muslim pairing to him or could he (Tinubu) have adopted it to please extreme elements such as El-Rufai who see politics and leadership mainly as a tool for religious expansionism?

If Tinubu thought that the Muslim-Muslim ticket would work in Nigeria, he should take another look at the dark clouds of division and mutual suspicion hanging over Kaduna State today. El-Rufai has pushed large segments of the citizenry to the fringes of society as a whole through his eggregious realignment of the power relations.

Nigeria cannot be turned into a theocracy the way El-Rufai has virtually done to Kaduna. The prospects are frightening, unethical and totally repugnant. Herein lies the fears of majority of Nigerian Christians and, indeed, liberal Muslims about the APC’s Muslim-Muslim presidential ticket.

They are apprehensive that, should Tinubu win, there is a huge possibility that he will attempt to institute the kinds of horrors El-Rufai has unleashed on Kaduna State as national policy. And the likelihood of this is extremely high because El-Rufai will most certainly form part of Tinubu’s innermost kitchen cabinet.

And with Tinubu’s penchant for outsourcing his power, leadership and responsibilities (some say due to his frail health), the way he did at Chatham House, there is no doubt that extreme elements such as El-Rufai will hijack his government. The consequences, as we have seen in Kaduna State, will be catastrophic, most especially for the much larger and extremely complex Nigeria.

These thought-provoking words of Bishop Kukah, though spoken in 2020, may shed more light on some of the issues at stake: “On our part, I believe that this is the defining moment for Christians and Christianity in Nigeria…. We accepted President Buhari when he came with General Idiagbon, two Muslims and two northerners. We accepted Abiola and Kingibe, thinking that we had crossed the path of religion, but we were grossly mistaken….”

“Today,” he added, ominously, “we are living with a Senate whose entire leadership is in the hands of Muslims. Christians have continued to support them. For how long shall we continue of this road with different ambitions?”

The other spectre, as it has become clear from this narrative, is the similarities in the political modus operandi and thought patterns of El-Rufai and Tinubu. This may account for the duo’s dangerous fascination with using attack and subterfuge as a means of conflict resolution and self-preservation and, of course, their fixation with the Muslim-Muslim ticket.

On July 30, 2022, one JOm, still miffed by El-Rufai’s tweet of July 15, 2012, referenced above, tweeted this angry, but extraordinarily perceptive, reply: “How did an extremist like this become a governor in Nigeria [?].” Fortunately or unfortunately, this is the man (d)marketing Tinubu to Nigerians today.

As citizens go to the polls to elect a president on Saturday, they must avoid hardliners like El-Rufai and all the people and ideals they represent. Like a plague, such bigots portend great danger for our country’s religious and ethnic plurality which has come under severe attack in the last eight years of the Buhari administration.

We must chart a new course, if we must survive.

(GYANG is the Chairman of the N.G.O, Journalists Coalition for Citizens’ Rights Initiative – JCCRI. Our website: https://jccri-online.org. Emails: info@jccri-online.org; chrisgyang01@gmail.com)

EL-RUFAI: PORTRAIT OF TINUBU’S HATCHET MAN

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinions

VP Kashim Shettima demonstrated leadership stewardship before, during, and after the burial of former President Muhammadu Buhari. 

Published

on

VP Kashim Shettima demonstrated leadership stewardship before, during, and after the burial of former President Muhammadu Buhari. 

VP Kashim Shettima demonstrated leadership stewardship before, during, and after the burial of former President Muhammadu Buhari. 

By: Dr. James Bwala

Vice President Kashim Shettima exemplified exceptional leadership stewardship in managing the burial process of former President Muhammadu Buhari. Before the burial, Shettima played a pivotal role in expediting the repatriation of Buhari’s remains from the United Kingdom by waiving the standard five-day protocol, enabling their return within 24 hours. This swift action reflected his diplomatic acumen and coordination with international bodies, including the Nigerian High Commission in London. 

During the funeral proceedings, Shettima led a high-profile delegation alongside President Bola Tinubu to Daura, Katsina State, where they conducted a solemn and respectful ceremony. The inclusion of military honors and adherence to Islamic burial rites underscored his commitment to honoring Buhari’s legacy with dignity and reverence. 

After the burial, Vice President Shettima continued to embody stewardship by ensuring that Buhari’s final wishes for a modest ceremony were fulfilled. His leadership throughout the entire process not only facilitated national unity but also demonstrated respect for cultural and personal values associated with state funerals. 

Vice President Kashim Shettima’s execution of assignments as directed by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu exemplifies a rare form of loyalty that underscores the essence of servant leadership. His unwavering commitment to the president’s vision and collective national welfare highlights his prioritization of service over personal ambition, a hallmark trait of true servant leaders. By maintaining unity within the administration and acting as both mentor and strategist, Shettima demonstrates responsibility and dedication that transcend conventional political roles. This steadfastness not only consolidates the administration’s objectives but also fosters trust among stakeholders.

Shettima’s ability to remain composed amid provocations reveals a deep-seated character marked by resilience and selflessness. Such conduct frustrates detractors while reinforcing his credibility as a leader who serves with humility and loyalty. Ultimately, the vice president’s approach reflects an exemplary model of servant leadership in contemporary governance, where loyalty is intertwined with accountability and genuine concern for the collective good.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/bandits-kill-seven-zamfara-community-protection-guards-cart-away-firearms/

The participation of Vice President Kashim Shettima in the burial process of the late former President Muhammadu Buhari in Daura represents a significant moment of humility and solidarity among Nigeria’s elite. By actively engaging in lowering the remains into the grave, Shettima transcended traditional boundaries often observed by individuals of high status, demonstrating profound respect and unity during a solemn occasion. Such involvement is rare, as prominent figures typically maintain a distance from physically participating in burial rites. However, Shettima’s actions inspired others present to similarly set aside their social ranks and partake collectively in honoring the departed leader.

This event underscores the potential for societal leaders to model empathy and communal values during times of loss. The collective effort at Daura not only paid homage to the former president but also sent a powerful message about national cohesion and shared humanity. It challenges conventional norms regarding status and ritual participation, encouraging greater inclusivity in public mourning practices. Consequently, Shettima’s example may foster broader cultural shifts toward unity across socio-political divides.

At the third day prayers, Vice President Kashim Shettima assumed a distinctly fatherly role that transcended mere political protocol. His engagement with sympathizers was marked by genuine empathy and approachable warmth, fostering a sense of communal solidarity during a period of profound grief. This compassionate demeanor not only comforted attendees but also reinforced social cohesion among mourners who sought solace in shared remembrance.

The Vice President’s interaction with the bereaved family was characterized by carefully chosen words of encouragement and rare personal reflections. These moments provided emotional sustenance and helped to bridge individual sorrow with collective resilience. His address functioned as more than a formal eulogy; it became a sermonic message imbued with wisdom and hope, intended to guide the family through their ongoing journey of mourning.

This paternal engagement by the vice president at such a solemn occasion underscores the vital role of empathetic leadership in times of national loss. The enduring impact of his words is likely to resonate within the family for years to come, serving as both a source of comfort and an ethical compass amid adversity.

Indeed, Vice President Kashim Shettima stands as one of the most exemplary figures in Nigeria’s democratic journey. His leadership is marked by a profound commitment to humanity and an unwavering reverence for ethical governance, qualities that have distinguished him from many of his predecessors. Shettima’s approach reflects a blend of empathy and accountability, fostering trust between the government and the populace. This humane leadership style has been instrumental in addressing socio-political challenges with sensitivity and pragmatism.

Shettima’s governance is deeply rooted in moral principles, often guided by the fear of God, which underpins his decision-making processes. This spiritual foundation enhances his credibility and integrity as a leader who prioritizes national interest over personal gain. Consequently, his tenure will be recorded in history as one characterized by sincere dedication to Nigeria’s progress and stability. Through his exemplary conduct, Vice President Kashim Shettima exemplifies what it means to lead with both compassion and conviction within Nigeria’s democratic experience. 

* James Bwala, PhD, writes from Abuja.

VP Kashim Shettima demonstrated leadership stewardship before, during, and after the burial of former President Muhammadu Buhari. 

Continue Reading

Opinions

“Guguwar Buhari “Is Gone: The End of Handout Votes in Arewa Politics

Published

on

“Guguwar Buhari “Is Gone: The End of Handout Votes in Arewa Politics

By Isaac Abrak

In the wake of Nigeria’s 2015 general elections, a powerful Hausa phrase emerged: “Guguwar Buhari” —literally Buhari’s whirlwind.It aptly captured the tidal wave of support that swept General Muhammadu Buhari and many others into power under the banner of the All Progressives Congress (APC). The whirlwind was so intense that it carried along even political unknowns—individuals with no record, reputation, or merit—simply because they stood beside Buhari, either on campaign posters or on the ballot.

That year, the APC logo became a winning ticket. Voters, driven by their deep trust in Buhari, voted for any name attached to it. The former general himself fueled this trend with his now-famous campaign line: “APC sama da kasa”—vote APC from top to bottom. And that’s exactly what the Talakawa (the masses), particularly in the North, did. From the presidency to the National Assembly, governorships, state assemblies, and local councils, a wave of victories was handed out—not earned—thanks to one man’s charisma.

But mere months into Buhari’s administration, another Hausa phrase quietly entered public discourse: “Guguwar Buhari ta kwashi yayi”—“Buhari’s whirlwind picked up garbage”. The people began to wake up. The same whirlwind that propelled leaders into power had also brought in many unqualified, self-serving, and underperforming politicians. Disillusionment replaced euphoria. The Talakawa realized that too many of their elected representatives were unworthy of the offices they held.

By 2019, the tide was turning. Buhari may have secured a second term, but many of those who had previously clung to his coattails were rejected by a more conscious electorate. The blind loyalty was fading. Voters began asking tougher questions and demanding results. Northern Nigeria was slowly moving away from political sentimentalism toward issue-based engagement.

In 2023, another dimension to Buhari’s political capital emerged—*tthe myth of his “sacred 12 million votes. For over a decade, Buhari had consistently pulled around 12 million votes in presidential elections, largely from the North. This voting bloc became a prized political asset. Every major candidate, including now-President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, sought to harness this number. Whether he succeeded or not is a matter for future political autopsy. But what’s no longer in doubt is that the *whirlwind* that delivered that power is now gone.

Some politicians still believe they can inherit this legacy—that they can simply stand in Buhari’s shoes and command the North’s votes. But such thinking is delusional.

As one guest rightly noted during a special NTA broadcast on the day of Buhari’s burial, those 12 million votes weren’t earned overnight. They were built over decades of public service—beginning with Buhari’s tenure as Military Governor of the old North-Eastern State, followed by his service as Minister of Petroleum, Head of State, Chairman of the Petroleum Trust Fund, and eventually President. It was a reputation forged through discipline, integrity, and patriotic service.

Even so, Buhari’s aura wasn’t untouchable. As his presidency wore on, the same Talakawa who had once idolized him began expressing disappointment. He was booed at campaign rallies in Kano and Bauchi in 2019, and most memorably in Maiduguri in 2020, when he visited after a Boko Haram attack. Angry residents chanted “Ba mu da shugaba!” (“We have no leader!”) and “Ba mayi!” (we don’t want!). His controversial border closure policy, intended to curb smuggling, had instead led to food scarcity and economic hardship. If “Mai Gaskiya” (The Truthful One) could be jeered, how much more any politician attempting to coast on his reputation?

Today, the Northern voter is changing. The Talakawa want more than slogans. They now demand:

  • Functional hospitals
  • Affordable, quality education
  • Food security
  • Reliable electricity
  • Clean water
  • And, above all, security from terrorism and violence

These are not campaign fantasies—they are expected deliverables. Any leader who wants to command the North must first prove they can deliver these essentials. The North is at a crossroads. It must move from dependency to productivity. Leaders must rise to this challenge or risk being discarded by a growing wave of enlightened voters.

Indeed, there is evidence of this awakening everywhere. On social media,young Northerners—many of them Hausa-Fulani Muslims—are openly rejecting traditional political formulas.Some now declare they would rather vote for a Christian-Christian ticket than a Muslim-Muslim one, if it means better governance. It’s tempting to dismiss this as fringe sentiment—but the message is spreading fast. And it’s reshaping public consciousness.

Let’s be clear: Buhari’s 12 million votes pampered a generation of politicians. Many rode on his back without offering anything meaningful to the people. That era is now behind us. The Northern voter is evolving. Political awareness is rising. And with it, a new demand for performance, integrity, and accountability.

Whoever aspires to lead the North, command the Talakawa, and inherit Buhari’s political legacy must offer more than recycled slogans. They must present tangible evidence of good governance not just political promises.

This shift isn’t a crisis—it’s a victory for democracy. And perhaps, it’s the greatest legacy Buhari leaves behind: a Nigeria where voters are thinking for themselves. If you doubt it, just wait for 2027. The Talakawa will speak again—and this time, even louder.

In death, Buhari has unexpectedly revived his 2015 campaign slogan:“Chanji Dole! no need to translate this one.

Isaac Abrak is a Hostile Environment Journalist, a One Nigerianist, and Chairman of the Northern Christian Youth Professionals.
isaaclinus@gmail.com

Continue Reading

Opinions

THE BIU FORUM: FEW THINGS TO KNOW

Published

on

THE BIU FORUM: FEW THINGS TO KNOW.

By: A G Abubakar

The Biu Forum was a child of circumstances. It was born in response to the fall out from the August 1991 state creation exercise by the Babangida military regime which initially located Biu in Yobe but removed same after a couple of days. To push for a redress or for an answer, the Forum was initiated. Its drivers came from the entire spectrum of the present day Biu Emirate and Shani Chiefdom, who were then resident in Lagos, the former federal capital.The first meeting was held in October 1991 at Block 4, Flat 3, the Bar Beach Towers, Victoria Island.

The inaugural and subsequent meetings of the forum were attended by such personalities as Shettima Saleh, Saidu Pindar, Tahir A.Musa, PC Abdullahi Mohammed, Musa Yamta, Hassan Bdliya, John Balami, Audu Shettima, Sanda Usman, Adamu Abdullahi, Musa Shani, Major (now Gen) Usman, Muhammad Dili, Ahmed Kuru, Jibrin A.Jibrin, A.G.Abubakar (Convener along with Musa Yamta), Mamman Audu, Paul Mari, Ishaku Abdullahi, Sale Mari Maina, Major. Ibrahim Bantam, Samaila Mamman, Sule Usman, C.D.Gali, and many more. These foundation members nurtured the Forum for years in Lagos before the seat of government was formally moved to Abuja.

Some of them are of blessed memory (may the Almighty grant them His mercy, Ameen), though a lot more are still living. The major objective of the forum at inception was to build a unity of purpose to tackle the challenges facing Biu Emirate, particularly its excision from the then newly created Yobe State. Plus, the need to call for attention to the brazen discriminations visited upon Biu people in the state’s civil service, while also pursuing the creation of a Savannah State. Same, with extending moral and material supports to victims of natural disasters and others like the then Waka-Biu crisis.

It would be recalled that after the Babangida military government decided to split old the Borno State, late General Abacha, then the Chief of Army Staff and the defacto number “two” man, who happened to be of Borno extraction, was assigned to consult with the Shehu as well as other opinion leaders on the government’s proposal to curve out a new state out of Borno. Late Bunu Sherrif, a son of the soil (Goniri), who was then serving as Minister of Labour among others, was to serve as a facilitator. The rough edges were therefore smoothened.

Eventually, Yobe was created. The configuration of which comprised three emirates, namely Biu, Fika, and Bade. Borno and Bama emirates were to remain as the New Borno State. The number of local governments was equally balanced at 22 each. Now, it is lopsidedly 17 and 27 LGAs for Yobe and Borno, respectively.

Along the line, some forces opposed to the inclusion of Biu emerged. The first one was the supposed friction between the Emirs of Biu and Fika regarding the order of protocol. A smokescreen, however, because the real reason was that Fika Emirate was promised the State capital (precisely Potiskum), but that was if Biu wasn’t part of the equation. The other reason was that Biu and Borno Emirates had a historical tie that made the duo almost conjoined. This was also untenable in that Ngazargamo that served as the capital of the old Kanem-Borno was severed into Yobe State. In the end, Biu remains part of Borno.

This development polarised the citizens of Biu Emirate into two. The Elders were not so favourably disposed towards leaving Borno, while the larger youth groups were at home with Yobe.

The advantages they averred included the possibility of playing more dominant political and economic roles in the new state, given the fact that Biu used to hold and still holds the Deputy Governor portfolio in Borno. The emirates (Fika and Biu) equally serve as the manpower base of the region . State politics could turn out to be like Adamawa, where all ethnic groups and/or stripes of faith can become the number one citizen of the state. The Emir of Biu would naturally be the most senior, in addition.

Based on the foregoing, Biu made a case for inclusion or, better still, a re-inclusion into Yobe. A move that was resisted vehemently by certain quarters under the umbrella of BEDA. Others who lent their voices included the Birma, Galadima Stanley Balami, PC Ali Biu, and Alhaji Ibrahim Damchida, all of blessed memory.

The Biu citizens who were pushing for the readjustment initially got the support of His Royal Highness, the Revered Mai Umar, who gracefully endorsed the demand document titled, “A Call For the Adjustment of Biu Emirate into Yobe State.” Or rather agreed for the document to be endorsed on his behalf, which was done. However, under pressure from all corners, His Royal Highness had to reconsider his support, as the Emirate found itself in a difficult situation. It was this development and regardless of the push back that the Biu Forum was formed as an alternative platform to still pursue the inclusion of Biu and Shani into Yobe State.

A petition to the government, was subsequently produced and forwarded. And to get a wider publicity and forestall suppression the Forum’s document was sent to the press . The rested influencial national newspaper, the Sunday Concord of 6th October 1991 carried the entire document. Yours faithfully picked the bill.

One of the the committed and highly articulate members of the Forum at the time, Alh. Muhammed Shehu Birma had his relationship with his principal, the Hon. Minister, Bunu Sheriff strained because of his role and support. Alh. Birma was one of the Special Assistants to the Minister who worked tirelessly to obtain the concurrence of major stakeholders to buy into the Forum’s activities.

When the misunderstanding so created on account of the state creation seemed unabating, formal meetings were called by the late elder statesman Alh. Damcida at his Probyn road, Ikoyi, home to sort things out. The “family” gathering enjoyed the presence of late Dr.Saidu Muhammad, PC Ali Biu, A.G.Abubakar, Muhammad S.Birma, Amb. Saidu Pindar, Alhaji Madu Biu, Shettima Saleh, with apologies from Dr.Bukar Usman.

One of the resolutions that came out of the series of dialogues was an undertaking by Mallam to seek an audience with General Abacha for possible reconsideration of the petition. The outcome was the creation of Hawul and Kwaya Kusar LGAs, while Biu as a whole stayed in Borno State.

As time went on, moves got started to merge the activities of the Forum to those of the senior Biu Development Association, BDA. The BDA is now BEDA (Biu Emirate Development Association). The move never materialised and the activities of both slowed down. It took the efforts of patriots like Engineer Ibrahim Usman, Dan Masani Muhammad Ibrahim, Adamu Abdullahi, Amb. Saidu, Ibrahim M.Kwajaffah, Muhammad Buba, Mai Musti, Bukar Umar and a host of others to revive the Forum and keep it going.

So for all intents and purposes the Biu Forum was not a Biu Local Government outfit. It was initiated to protect and promote the interest of Biu and Shani Emirates. And indeed every Aburwa on the planet. How it became a Forum exclusively for Biu Local Government Area was maybe a later development to give the Forum a sharper focus. And maybe to ensure a seamless coexistence with the senior BEDA.This has been a short story of the now, 33-year old (1991 to –) initiative.

A.G.Abubakar agbarewa@gmail.com

THE BIU FORUM: FEW THINGS TO KNOW

Continue Reading

Trending

Verified by MonsterInsights