Politics

VP Shettima Allegations: Paul Ibe Must Bring Proof, Not Just Headlines.”

Published

3 hours ago

October 15, 2026

News Net Global

VP KASHIM SHETTIMA

VP Shettima Allegations: Paul Ibe Must Bring Proof, Not Just Headlines.”

By: Dr James Bwala

When Vice President Kashim Shettima referred to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar as “the Jaramogi Odinga of Nigeria,” it was predictable that the Atiku camp would respond. Political supporters rarely allow such comparisons to pass without searching for a way to strike back. In this case, the response focused on the 2012 arrest of Boko Haram commander Kabiru Sokoto at the Borno State Government Lodge in Abuja and demanded that Shettima explain the circumstances surrounding the incident.

That demand is not, in itself, unreasonable. The arrest of a high-profile terrorism suspect at a government facility was a serious security breach, and Nigerians have every right to ask questions about what happened. However, the manner in which the matter is being used politically reveals a recurring problem in public discourse: the tendency to convert an unexplained security incident into an allegation of personal complicity without presenting evidence.

Those attacking Shettima often act on narratives promoted by individuals who know little about the history and complexities of the Boko Haram insurgency in North-east Nigeria. The most reliable accounts of that conflict do not come exclusively from politicians who appeared before television cameras after reading newspaper reports or receiving briefings from others. They come from the communities that suffered the violence and from journalists who lived, worked and reported from the front line for years.

As a journalist who worked in Maiduguri and covered the North-east for the Nigerian Tribune and other media platforms during the height of the Boko Haram insurgency, I consider myself well placed to discuss the realities of that period. I witnessed the fear, confusion and institutional weaknesses that defined the conflict. I also observed how easily facts were distorted for political purposes. For that reason, I was particularly interested in the recent reaction by Paul Ibe, Atiku Abubakar’s spokesman, demanding that Vice President Shettima answer questions about Kabiru Sokoto’s arrest.

I am not speaking for Shettima in his official capacity as vice president. He has an official spokesperson whose responsibility it is to respond to political and public questions on his behalf. I am speaking as an analyst and journalist who has followed the events of that period closely. Since many people are now presenting themselves as defenders of Atiku or Shettima, it is important to refresh the public record and insist that political arguments remain anchored in facts.

Kabiru Sokoto’s arrest at the Borno State Government’s lodge in Abuja in January 2012 was undoubtedly a major security incident. Sokoto was wanted in connection with the bombing of St Theresa’s Catholic Church in Madalla, Niger State, on Christmas Day in 2011. The attack killed and injured worshippers and shocked the nation. His presence at a government facility naturally raised serious concerns about how he gained access, who facilitated his movement and whether security officials failed in their duties.

These questions deserve clear answers. Yet, the existence of a security breach is not automatically proof that the governor of Borno State, Kashim Shettima, was involved in terrorism or knowingly assisted a terrorist suspect. That distinction is fundamental. A person may enter a government facility because of negligence, deception, unauthorised assistance or a failure of security procedures. None of these possibilities, without more, establishes the personal involvement of the political head of the state.

The explanation provided by the Borno State Government at the time was that accommodation had been approved for Ibrahim Umar Abba, who arrived with two other men. One of those men was Kabiru Sokoto. The government maintained that the governor and senior state officials did not know the visitors and characterised the incident as a security breach. Whether that explanation is satisfactory is a matter for evidence and investigation. But it should not be dismissed merely because it does not serve a partisan narrative.

The central question that Paul Ibe and others must answer is not whether Sokoto was arrested at a government lodge. That fact is already known. The important question is what evidence demonstrates that Shettima personally knew Kabiru Sokoto, authorised his entry, or knowingly provided assistance to him. If such evidence exists, it should be made public and examined. If it does not exist, then the arrest should not be presented as proof of complicity.

Political debate cannot be governed by the principle that association equals guilt. If that standard is applied consistently, many public officials could be accused of wrongdoing because a criminal, terrorist or corrupt individual once entered a public building, attended a political gathering or had contact with someone connected to them. In a country where public institutions are often weakened by poor security and inadequate coordination, such a standard would produce endless allegations without establishing responsibility.

There were also reports that Kabiru Sokoto may have intended to target Shettima’s children. That dimension of the case deserves proper examination. It does not, by itself, resolve every question surrounding his presence at the lodge, but it demonstrates why the incident cannot be interpreted from only one angle. If a terrorist suspect was seeking access to a political leader’s family, the possibility that he exploited the identity or connections of another person must be considered. Investigators would need to establish whether the suspect was invited, hidden, deceived officials or used someone else’s credentials.

Has Paul Ibe considered that possibility? Has he examined the investigation records, witness statements or court materials connected to the case? Has he identified evidence showing that Shettima knew Sokoto personally or was aware of the plan to shelter him? These are not attempts to prevent accountability. They are necessary questions if the discussion is to rise above political accusation.

The broader problem is that the Boko Haram conflict is frequently recalled selectively. Politicians and commentators sometimes reduce complex events to convenient stories that serve present political interests. But the insurgency was not a simple contest between two political parties. It involved terrorism, criminal networks, intelligence failures, local grievances, compromised institutions, community fear and the collapse of trust between citizens and security agencies. The people of Borno and other Northeastern states paid the highest price for those failures.

Journalists who covered the region during that period understood the difference between what was said in official statements and what was happening on the ground. We reported attacks, displacement, arrests, military operations and political reactions. We saw how rumours moved faster than verified information and how officials sometimes spoke before investigations were complete. We also saw how individuals who had never visited the affected communities confidently presented simplistic explanations on television.

That experience should encourage caution. The public deserves transparency, but transparency is not the same as political sensationalism. A demand for explanation is legitimate when it seeks documents, timelines, testimony and verifiable findings. It becomes irresponsible when it implies guilt before the relevant evidence has been established.

Paul Ibe is entitled to demand answers from Vice President Shettima. Nigerians are equally entitled to ask Atiku Abubakar’s camp whether it is pursuing accountability or merely searching for a political weapon. If the purpose is accountability, then the focus should be on the investigation: Who approved the accommodation? Who authorised the visitors’ entry? What security procedures were followed? Which officials were interviewed? What did the police and intelligence agencies conclude? Was anyone prosecuted, and on what evidence?

These questions should be addressed through official records rather than partisan declarations. If the investigation established that officials acted negligently, appropriate sanctions should have followed. If it established deliberate assistance, those responsible should have faced prosecution. If it found no evidence linking Shettima personally to the suspect, then the public should not be encouraged to treat the incident as proof of guilt.

The same standard must apply to all public officials, regardless of political affiliation. Supporters of Atiku should not demand a lower burden of proof for allegations against Shettima than they would accept for allegations against their own principal. Likewise, supporters of Shettima should not dismiss legitimate questions merely because they come from an opposition figure. Democracy requires scrutiny, but scrutiny loses its value when it is motivated exclusively by revenge.

The argument also exposes the danger of importing unrelated political grievances into security matters. Shettima’s reference to Atiku as Nigeria’s “Jaramogi Odinga” may have been interpreted by Atiku’s supporters as provocative or dismissive. They may believe the comparison was historically inaccurate or politically insulting. They are free to challenge it. But responding to a political analogy by reviving an old security incident does not automatically strengthen their case. It may instead create the impression that they are changing the subject because they are unhappy with the original remark.

There is a legitimate debate to be had about Atiku Abubakar’s political career, electoral struggles and public role. There is also a legitimate debate about Shettima’s record as governor and national political figure. Those debates should be conducted with evidence, historical accuracy and intellectual honesty. Turning every disagreement into an accusation of terrorism-related complicity damages public discourse and trivialises the suffering of victims of Boko Haram.

The “Jaramogi Odinga” comparison may continue to generate controversy, particularly because historical analogies carry political and cultural meanings. But whatever one thinks of the comparison, it should not be allowed to produce reckless allegations. Political communication should be judged on its accuracy and intention, while security accusations should be judged on evidence.

The Kabiru Sokoto incident remains a matter worthy of public examination. Government facilities must be protected, security breaches must be investigated, and citizens have a right to know whether officials failed in their responsibilities. But fairness requires a clear distinction between institutional failure and personal criminal intent. Until evidence establishes that Kashim Shettima knowingly assisted Kabiru Sokoto, his presence at the lodge remains evidence of a serious breach—not proof that the governor was involved in terrorism.

If Paul Ibe has evidence to the contrary, he should present it. If the relevant records contain findings that implicate Shettima, those findings should be scrutinised openly. But if no such evidence exists, the allegation should not be treated as established fact simply because it is politically useful. As a journalist, Paul Ibe should know better.

* James Bwala, PhD, writes from Abuja

VP Shettima Allegations: Paul Ibe Must Bring Proof, Not Just Headlines.”

Related Topics:VP Shettima Allegations: Paul Ibe Must Bring Proof

Don't Miss

2027: Inside Tinubu–Shettima’s Campaign Strategy and the Battle for Advantage

News Net Global

Click to comment

Politics

2027: Inside Tinubu–Shettima’s Campaign Strategy and the Battle for Advantage

Published

10 hours ago

October 15, 2026

News Net Global

2027: Inside Tinubu–Shettima’s Campaign Strategy and the Battle for Advantage

2027: Inside Tinubu–Shettima’s Campaign Strategy and the Battle for Advantage

By: Dr. James Bwala

The inauguration of the 2027 Presidential Campaign Council on October 14, 2026, has introduced a new dimension into Nigeria’s political communications. Beyond the ceremony itself, the composition of the council and the public statements made by some of its leading figures have generated significant debate about the direction of the 2027 presidential contest. The presence of Nyesome Wike, Charles Soludo, and Ademola Adeleke—three politicians with distinct political identities, regional influence, and public appeal—has made the council more than an ordinary campaign structure. It has become a political statement.

At the center of this development is President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s apparent determination to secure a second term. His supporters believe that his administration deserves the opportunity to consolidate its reforms, while his opponents are attempting to construct a coalition capable of defeating him. Yet, based on the current political alignments, the president appears to hold a commanding advantage. The endorsement and participation of influential figures such as Governor Charles Soludo, Minister Nyesome Wike, and Governor Ademola Adeleke suggest that the political terrain is already tilting in Tinubu’s favor.

Governor Soludo’s speech at the inauguration was particularly significant. He stated, “There is no time in the history of Nigeria, to my knowledge, that there is a consensus in the political arena that one man—President Tinubu—deserves to be reelected in this country.” He added that although the path Tinubu had chosen might be difficult, it was necessary, and assured the president: “We are with you, and we are a partner, and we will remain your partner.”

These were not casual remarks. Soludo is an economist, a former central bank governor, and a governor who understands the implications of political language. He chose his words carefully. His statement was not merely an expression of personal admiration. It was an attempt to frame the 2027 election as a national consensus rather than a narrow partisan contest. His endorsement is strategically important, whether you agree with his conclusion or not.

The most important message from Soludo’s speech is that Tinubu’s reelection campaign is being presented as a project of continuity. The administration’s economic policies, including the removal of fuel subsidies, the unification of foreign exchange markets, and efforts to attract investment, have imposed serious short-term difficulties on Nigerians. Inflation, rising living expenses, unemployment, and declining purchasing power have created widespread anxiety. However, Tinubu’s supporters argue that these painful measures are necessary corrections to long-standing structural problems. Soludo’s intervention reinforces this argument: the reforms may be difficult, but abandoning them, in his view, would be more damaging.

Candidates often win political campaigns not just by presenting policies but also by crafting compelling narratives. Tinubu’s camp is attempting to establish the narrative that the president is a reformer confronting problems that previous administrations avoided. If this narrative becomes widely accepted, the 2027 election may be framed as a choice between continuing a difficult but necessary transformation and returning to what supporters describe as an era of indecision. Soludo’s speech contributes powerfully to that narrative.

The participation of Nyesome Wike adds another layer to the campaign council’s significance. Wike is one of Nigeria’s most influential and unpredictable political actors. Although he belongs to the opposition Peoples Democratic Party, his political relationship with the Tinubu administration has become increasingly visible. His decision to serve as a minister in the federal government placed him in a position that transcends traditional party loyalty. Wike has demonstrated that he is prepared to pursue political influence through strategic alliances rather than rigid adherence to party expectations.

His role in the 2027 campaign is therefore important for two reasons. First, Wike commands substantial influence in Rivers State and the wider South-South region. Second, his political style attracts attention because he is willing to make bold statements and take positions that many politicians would avoid. His involvement suggests that Tinubu’s campaign is not depending solely on the structures of the All Progressives Congress. Instead, it is assembling a broader coalition that includes influential figures from outside the ruling party.

Wike’s political movement has also exposed the weakness of the opposition’s internal coordination. Rather than presenting a unified alternative, the opposition has been affected by personal ambitions, factional disputes, and disagreements over leadership. The PDP remains divided, while other opposition platforms appear more focused on negotiating alliances than developing a clear national strategy. In such an environment, Wike’s alignment with Tinubu becomes even more consequential. It deprives the opposition of a major political operator while strengthening the president’s coalition.

Governor Ademola Adeleke’s presence and public support add a different but equally important dimension. As a prominent figure in the PDP, the Accord Party, and the governor of Osun State, Adeleke possesses significant appeal among grassroots voters. His popularity, personal style, and connection with the people have made him an important political figure beyond his immediate state. His participation in a campaign council supporting Tinubu suggests that the president’s coalition is capable of attracting politicians whose political identities are not traditionally associated with the ruling party.

Adeleke is known for his energetic public persona and his ability to communicate with ordinary voters. His political appeal is less ideological and more emotional and popular. In a country where voters often respond to personal connection, visibility, and cultural familiarity, his role could help broaden Tinubu’s reach. His presence may also weaken the opposition’s claim that the 2027 contest will be a simple battle between the ruling party and a unified alternative.

The combination of Soludo, Wike, and Adeleke is significant because each represents a different political constituency. Soludo brings intellectual credibility, economic arguments, and influence in the Southeast. Wike brings strategic calculation, administrative experience, and influence in the South-South. Adeleke brings popular appeal, grassroots energy, and influence in the Southwest. Together, they create the image of a coalition that cuts across regions, parties, and political styles.

This is why the campaign council has become a major topic in political communication. Its power lies not simply in the names of the individuals involved but in the message they collectively communicate. The message is that Tinubu is not politically isolated. He is building alliances across party lines and positioning himself as the central figure around whom Nigeria’s political future may revolve.

This development should concern former Vice President Atiku Abubakar. Atiku remains one of Nigeria’s most experienced politicians and has a loyal national following. However, experience alone may not be enough to overcome the challenges before him. His repeated presidential contests have made him a familiar figure, but they have also raised questions about whether the country is ready to embrace another campaign centered on his candidacy. The emergence of new alliances and the continued movement of influential politicians toward Tinubu make Atiku’s political calculations increasingly difficult.

For his own political benefit, Atiku should carefully reconsider whether contesting in 2027 is the most strategic decision. A presidential contest requires more than personal ambition. It requires favorable political conditions, a united platform, credible allies, financial strength, a compelling message, and the ability to connect with voters across generations. If these conditions are not available, another contest could weaken rather than strengthen his historical legacy.

Atiku might serve Nigeria more effectively by helping to build a younger and more unified opposition capable of presenting a credible alternative in the future. His experience could be used to mentor emerging leaders, negotiate unity among opposition parties, and promote a national program based on economic growth, institutional reform, and social stability. Such a decision would not represent political surrender. It could demonstrate statesmanship.

Peter Obi also faces a difficult political environment. His performance in the 2023 election created a powerful movement, particularly among young Nigerians and urban voters. The Labour Party’s message of competence, accountability, and national renewal resonated with many citizens. However, turning a popular movement into a winning national political structure requires more than enthusiasm. It demands organization across all local governments, durable alliances, credible candidates, disciplined communication, and a strategy for winning outside the movement’s strongest regions.

Currently in NDC, Obi’s supporters remain energetic, but energy must be converted into electoral machinery. Meanwhile, Tinubu is demonstrating the advantages of incumbency, access to state institutions, political experience, and coalition-building. If the opposition remains fragmented, it may spend the period before 2027 debating personalities while the ruling coalition consolidates its structure.

Tinubu’s strength also comes from his understanding of political power. He has shown himself to be patient, strategic, and willing to make unexpected alliances. His administration may face criticism over economic hardship, but political victories are not determined only by public frustration. They are also shaped by organization, timing, negotiation, and the ability to prevent opponents from uniting. In this regard, Tinubu has demonstrated considerable skill.

However, the president and his supporters must not mistake political advantage for guaranteed victory. Nigerians are experiencing genuine hardship. No campaign structure, endorsement, or political alliance can permanently substitute for improved living conditions. If inflation remains high, unemployment continues to rise, and citizens feel excluded from the benefits of government policies, public dissatisfaction may eventually overcome the advantages of incumbency.

Therefore, Soludo’s argument for continuity must be accompanied by measurable results. Nigerians may accept difficult reforms when they believe those reforms will produce a better future. But patience has limits. The administration must communicate honestly, protect vulnerable citizens, reduce waste, strengthen security, and ensure that economic recovery is felt beyond official statistics. The success of the 2027 campaign will depend not only on political alliances but also on whether the government can convince citizens that its policies are working.

Nevertheless, the current political picture clearly favors Tinubu. The emergence of a broad campaign council, the involvement of powerful figures across party lines, and the absence of a united opposition have placed the president in a strong position.

*James Bwala, PhD, writes from Abuja

2027: Inside Tinubu–Shettima’s Campaign Strategy and the Battle for Advantage

Politics

THE JARAMOGI ODINGA OF NIGERIA? How Shettima Put Leadership, Respect, and Political Responsibility at the Heart of His Message to Atiku

Published

1 day ago

October 14, 2026

News Net Global

THE JARAMOGI ODINGA OF NIGERIA? How Shettima Put Leadership, Respect, and Political Responsibility at the Heart of His Message to Atiku

THE JARAMOGI ODINGA OF NIGERIA? How Shettima Put Leadership, Respect, and Political Responsibility at the Heart of His Message to Atiku

By: Dr. James Bwala

Political competition is an essential feature of democracy. It allows citizens to compare ideas, assess records, and choose leaders according to their interests and convictions. However, political competition loses its democratic value when it becomes a contest in personal ridicule, deliberate misrepresentation, or disrespect for public institutions. In this context, Vice President Kashim Shettima’s response to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s repeated reference to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu simply as “Bola” raises an important question: should political disagreement permit the systematic reduction of a sitting president to an informal or supposedly dismissive name?

Shettima’s statement—that “you can call him Bola or Adekunle if you like; the truth is that he is the president and commander in chief of the armed forces of Nigeria”—is persuasive because it shifts attention from personal familiarity to constitutional authority. His broader remarks, however, including his references to Atiku’s political history and comparisons with other figures, reveal the dangers of responding to provocation with further personal attacks. The central principle remains clear: Nigerian political discourse should be based on respect for institutions, honest criticism, and accountability rather than mockery and name-calling.

The title and office of the president are not merely ceremonial. Under Nigeria’s constitutional system, the president is the head of the federal executive branch and commander in chief of the armed forces. Whether citizens admire or oppose the president, the office carries legal authority and national significance. Addressing the occupant of that office with appropriate recognition is therefore not necessarily an expression of personal support. It is an acknowledgment of the institution itself.

This distinction is particularly important in a democracy. A citizen may strongly criticize the president’s economic policies, security record, appointments, or political decisions while still recognizing the constitutional authority of the presidency. Indeed, democratic criticism becomes more effective when it is directed at policies and conduct rather than expressed through personal humiliation. Calling a public official by a familiar name may appear harmless in private conversation, but when used repeatedly in a political campaign to diminish the status of the office, it may contribute to a broader culture of disrespect.

Atiku Abubakar, as a former vice president and a major political figure, has every right to challenge President Tinubu’s administration. He may argue that the government has failed to meet expectations, that its economic reforms have increased hardship, or that its policies require reconsideration. Such arguments should be answered with facts, evidence, and alternative proposals. Reducing the president to a first name, however, does not strengthen the criticism. It risks making political debate appear driven by resentment rather than reason.

Shettima’s response is therefore justified to the extent that it defends the dignity of the presidency. His declaration that he would refer to Atiku as “a former vice president” demonstrates the principle of acknowledging a person’s public status. This is not a demand that Nigerians surrender their freedom of expression. Instead, it is a reminder that responsible political language can preserve disagreement without destroying civility.

Respect is especially important in a country as diverse and politically sensitive as Nigeria. Political leaders speak not only to their immediate supporters but also to millions of citizens who may interpret their words as permission for confrontation. When senior politicians exchange insults, their followers may imitate that conduct in more aggressive forms. Online abuse, threats, tribal stereotyping, and political intolerance can develop from the normalizing of contempt at the highest level.

Leadership therefore imposes a duty of restraint. A person seeking the presidency should demonstrate an ability to disagree without constantly degrading opponents. This is not weakness. On the contrary, restraint signals confidence, maturity, and respect for the electorate. Citizens deserve political leaders who can explain why a policy is wrong, why an election strategy is flawed, or why a government has failed, rather than leaders who rely principally on ridicule.

Nevertheless, Shettima’s own remarks must also be examined critically. In responding to Atiku, he reportedly referred to Atiku’s repeated presidential contests and stated that he was not Abraham Lincoln, while also making a comparison involving Raila Odinga. Although political leaders may use historical comparisons to make rhetorical points, such statements can distract from the stronger constitutional argument. If the purpose is to defend respect for public office, the response should avoid language that appears to ridicule another public figure.

The principle of civility must apply equally to government supporters and opposition figures. It cannot be demanded from one side while being ignored by the other. President Tinubu’s supporters should not condemn disrespect toward the presidency and then engage in personal abuse of opposition leaders. Likewise, opposition politicians should not demand accountability while using language designed only to provoke or delegitimize the government. A healthy political culture requires consistency.

There is also a difference between personal familiarity and institutional disrespect. In some contexts, a politician may use a first name because of a long-standing personal relationship. Such usage is not automatically offensive. However, when the name is used in a public political dispute with the apparent intention of reducing the person’s stature, the meaning changes. Language is shaped by context, tone, and purpose. The question is not merely whether “Bola” is the president’s given name, but whether its use is intended to recognize him as a national leader or to portray him as unworthy of formal respect.

Political leaders should also remember that titles are not substitutes for accountability. Calling President Tinubu “Mr. President” does not mean that citizens must approve of his policies. Similarly, addressing Atiku as “former vice president” does not mean that his criticisms should be ignored. Respectful language and rigorous scrutiny can coexist. In fact, they should coexist. Democracy requires both recognition of authority and the freedom to question how that authority is exercised.

Shettima’s reference to Atiku’s many presidential contests also invites a broader reflection on political ambition. Repeated participation in elections is not, by itself, proof of failure or dishonor. Many democratic leaders contested several times before achieving office, while others remained influential without winning the highest position. The legitimacy of a political career should be judged by ideas, conduct, service, and adherence to democratic rules—not merely by the number of attempts made.

For this reason, personal references to the age, electoral history, or perceived ambitions of opponents should be used cautiously. They may energize a political crowd, but they rarely help citizens understand the real issues before the country. Nigeria faces serious challenges: inflation, unemployment, insecurity, weak public services, corruption, ethnic mistrust, and declining confidence in public institutions. These problems require serious debate. Time spent trading insults is time diverted from discussing practical solutions.

The inauguration of a campaign council is an occasion for mobilization, but it should also be an opportunity to define the character of the campaign. A campaign should tell citizens what a party intends to do, how it will do it, and why its program deserves support. If the campaign becomes primarily a platform for attacking opponents, the electorate may be left with slogans instead of plans. Political communication should persuade citizens through vision and performance, not merely through derision.

Supporters of President Tinubu can make a stronger case by highlighting measurable achievements, explaining difficult reforms, acknowledging genuine hardships, and presenting credible plans for improvement. They do not need to depend on insults directed at Atiku or any other opponent. Similarly, Atiku and his supporters can build a more convincing opposition by presenting detailed alternatives and demonstrating how their proposals would address national problems. Criticism is most powerful when it is specific, factual, and connected to the daily experiences of citizens.

Ultimately, the controversy surrounding the use of “Bola” reflects a larger crisis in Nigerian political communication. Public discourse has increasingly become personal, emotional, and hostile. Political actors often treat every criticism as an attack on their identity, while supporters assume that defending their party requires abusing its opponents. This pattern weakens democratic culture. It makes compromise difficult, encourages misinformation, and shifts attention away from governance.

The appropriate standard should be simple: criticize policies, question decisions, challenge records, and expose wrongdoing—but do not deliberately demean public offices or reduce political disagreement to personal humiliation. The president should be respected as president, even when his administration is opposed. Former leaders and candidates should also be treated with dignity, even when their records are criticized. Respect does not eliminate accountability; it creates the conditions in which accountability can be pursued constructively.

Vice President Shettima is right to insist that President Tinubu’s constitutional position deserves recognition. However, the most persuasive defense of that position would be one expressed with restraint and supported by evidence. The same standard applies to Atiku Abubakar and every other political actor. Nigeria does not need louder insults; it needs better arguments, stronger institutions, and leaders capable of disagreeing without destroying mutual respect.

The future of Nigerian democracy will depend not only on who wins elections but also on how political leaders behave while seeking power. A nation is strengthened when its leaders respect offices, honor legitimate criticism, and place national interest above personal rivalry. The president is more than a first name, and an opposition candidate is more than a target for ridicule. Both represent important parts of a democratic system that must be protected through responsible speech and principled conduct.

*James Bwala, PhD, writes from Abuja

THE JARAMOGI ODINGA OF NIGERIA? How Shettima Put Leadership, Respect, and Political Responsibility at the Heart of His Message to Atiku

Politics

Borno Politics: Power, Continuity, and the Fight for Democratic Space Ahead of 2027 Elections

Published

1 day ago

October 14, 2026

News Net Global

Borno Politics: Power, Continuity, and the Fight for Democratic Space Ahead of 2027 Elections

Borno Politics: Power, Continuity, and the Fight for Democratic Space Ahead of 2027 Elections

By: Dr. James Bwala

The political tension in Borno State is being shaped by two closely connected developments: the strategic emergence of Engr. Mustapha Gubio as the All Progressives Congress (APC) consensus candidate for the 2027 governorship election, and the growing backlash against Governor Babagana Zulum over the controversial arrest of individuals associated with the #TinubuMustGo campaign. Together, these developments reveal a deeper contest over political succession, party control, public accountability, and the limits of democratic expression in a state still recovering from years of insecurity.

The APC’s decision to endorse Gubio, reportedly supported by Governor Zulum and Vice President Kashim Shettima, has strengthened the ruling party’s political position. At the same time, the arrests linked to an anti-government campaign have generated criticism and raised concerns about whether political stability is being pursued at the expense of civil liberties. Although the APC’s consensus strategy may offer organizational advantages, its long-term success will depend on whether the party can combine continuity with openness, development with accountability, and political strength with respect for democratic rights.

Engr. Mustapha Gubio’s selection is significant because it reflects the APC’s desire to present the 2027 election as a referendum on continuity. As a former Commissioner for Works and a figure associated with the Ministry of Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement, Gubio is positioned as a candidate whose experience corresponds closely with Borno’s central needs. The state continues to face the consequences of insurgency, displacement, destroyed infrastructure, disrupted education, weakened local economies, and the difficult task of rebuilding public trust. A candidate with direct experience in reconstruction can therefore argue that he understands the practical requirements of post-conflict governance.

This is a powerful political message. Rather than presenting the 2027 election as a choice between an established government and an uncertain alternative, the APC is likely to frame it as a choice between ongoing reconstruction and the risks of interruption. Such a strategy allows the ruling party to emphasize roads, schools, hospitals, housing, resettlement, public institutions, and economic recovery. It also enables Gubio to claim that his participation in previous reconstruction efforts gives him an advantage over opponents who may lack comparable administrative experience.

The argument for continuity is especially persuasive in a state where development projects are closely connected to security and social stability. Rebuilding destroyed communities is not merely an infrastructure exercise. It involves restoring livelihoods, encouraging displaced residents to return, strengthening local government institutions, expanding access to education and healthcare, and creating conditions in which citizens can once again participate in economic life. If the APC can demonstrate measurable progress in these areas, its candidate will benefit from a strong incumbency narrative.

Gubio’s selection also appears to be a deliberate attempt to prevent the internal divisions that often weaken ruling parties before elections. Governorship contests can produce bitterness among aspirants, create rival political blocs, and trigger defections. When a party conducts a highly competitive primary without managing the grievances that follow, opposition parties may exploit the resulting divisions. The consensus arrangement is intended to prevent this outcome by settling the succession question early and presenting a united front.

From the APC’s perspective, this is a rational political strategy. A consensus candidate can reduce campaign costs, limit destructive competition, and make it easier for party leaders to coordinate their political structures. It also offers aspiring politicians the opportunity to negotiate roles within a broader arrangement rather than engaging in an open contest that produces permanent winners and losers. If party leaders succeed in maintaining discipline, Gubio’s candidacy could become the center of an extensive coalition involving elected officials, party executives, traditional institutions, business interests, and grassroots mobilizers.

However, consensus politics can produce stability only when it is perceived as legitimate. If party members or citizens believe that the candidate was imposed without meaningful consultation, the appearance of unity may conceal resentment. Political agreement among powerful actors is not necessarily the same as broad public acceptance. The APC must therefore demonstrate that its consensus process was credible, transparent, and responsive to the interests of ordinary party members. Otherwise, dissatisfied politicians may remain within the party while quietly undermining the campaign.

The reported backing of Governor Zulum and Vice President Shettima gives Gubio a further advantage. Their support provides access to institutional networks, political experience, campaign resources, and a broad alliance within the APC. Governor Zulum remains an influential figure in Borno politics, while Vice President Shettima brings national visibility and strong political connections. Their joint support signals that Gubio is not merely an individual candidate but the chosen representative of a powerful political arrangement.

This institutional backing could make it difficult for opposition parties to compete effectively. Elections are not won solely through popularity; they also depend on organization, funding, messaging, agents, logistics, coalition-building, and the ability to mobilize voters across diverse communities. A candidate supported by the governor and the vice president is likely to inherit a well-developed political structure. Opposition parties, by contrast, may face limited resources, internal disagreements, weak grassroots organization, and difficulty presenting a credible alternative to the ruling party’s reconstruction agenda.

Nevertheless, political machinery cannot eliminate public dissatisfaction. It can mobilize supporters, but it cannot permanently conceal governance failures. The APC will still need to answer questions about unemployment, poverty, insecurity, the condition of internally displaced persons, the effectiveness of resettlement programs, access to education, and the distribution of development projects. The more powerful the ruling party becomes, the greater the expectation that it should provide clear evidence of performance.

This is where the controversy surrounding the arrests linked to the #TinubuMustGo campaign becomes politically important. The campaign, regardless of its ideological position or popularity, represents a form of political expression. The reported arrest of individuals associated with it has triggered criticism because citizens in a democracy should not be treated as criminals merely for expressing opposition to a government or political leader. Where arrests are made, authorities have a responsibility to explain the legal basis, present credible evidence of wrongdoing, and ensure that suspects receive due process.

Supporters of the government may argue that the arrests were necessary to prevent disorder, protect public security, or stop inflammatory activities. Borno’s history of violent conflict makes security a serious concern, and government officials cannot ignore credible threats. However, security arguments must not become a blanket justification for suppressing dissent. There is an important difference between peaceful political criticism and conduct that genuinely threatens public safety. A government committed to democratic legitimacy must distinguish between the two.

The backlash against Governor Zulum therefore extends beyond the specific arrests. It reflects a wider concern about the relationship between security governance and political freedom. In a state that has experienced terrorism and instability, citizens may accept certain security measures when they are lawful, necessary, and proportionate. They are less likely to accept arbitrary arrests, political intimidation, or the use of state power against peaceful critics. Such actions can deepen distrust and create the impression that the government fears public debate.

The controversy also creates a challenge for Gubio’s campaign. If the APC presents itself as the party of stability and continuity, it must clarify what kind of continuity it represents. Continuity in rebuilding infrastructure and restoring communities may be welcomed. Continuity in suppressing criticism would be far more damaging. Opposition parties will likely use the arrests to argue that the ruling party wants political control without accountability. They may portray Gubio’s endorsement as part of a broader effort to consolidate power and silence opposition before the election begins.

For this reason, the APC should not dismiss the backlash as a temporary political disturbance. It should treat it as a warning. A government that commands strong institutional support can afford to be more confident in its response to criticism. It should investigate the circumstances surrounding the arrests, communicate openly with the public, and ensure that law enforcement agencies operate within constitutional limits. Transparency would not weaken the government; rather, it would strengthen its credibility.

The opposition also has responsibilities. It must not exploit public anger through misinformation, incitement, or reckless claims. A credible opposition should offer practical alternatives on security, reconstruction, education, healthcare, agriculture, job creation, and democratic reform. Criticism becomes politically persuasive when it is supported by facts and accompanied by a realistic program of government. Without this, opposition parties may remain dependent on the ruling party’s mistakes rather than building genuine public confidence.

Ultimately, the political contest in Borno State will be decided by more than party endorsements. The APC has gained an early advantage through the selection of a candidate with relevant experience, the promise of continuity, and the backing of influential leaders. Its consensus strategy may limit internal conflict and give Gubio a strong organizational platform. However, political strength is not a substitute for legitimacy. The party must still convince citizens that continuity will produce better lives, not merely preserve political control.

The #TinubuMustGo controversy reinforces this point. Development and democracy cannot be separated. A state may rebuild roads and public buildings while weakening trust if citizens feel unable to criticize those in power. Conversely, political freedom without effective governance cannot address the material hardships facing communities. Borno requires both: sustained reconstruction and respect for constitutional rights.

The most persuasive path for the APC is therefore to combine its strongest political asset—continuity—with a clear commitment to accountability. Gubio should define his campaign through measurable development targets, public engagement, and an inclusive vision that extends beyond party loyalists. Governor Zulum and other party leaders should demonstrate that political stability does not require the suppression of legitimate dissent. The opposition, for its part, should transform criticism into a credible alternative rather than rely solely on controversy.

Borno State stands at an important political crossroads. The APC’s early consolidation has unsettled opposition parties and positioned Gubio as a formidable contender for 2027. Yet the same concentration of political power has intensified scrutiny of the government’s conduct.