By Isa Galanbi

The recent piece which appeared in The Eyewitness Newspaper, lamenting the suitability of Nasarawa’s legislative stars for executive leadership reeks of baseless generalization and a troubling ignorance of political realities. To dismiss accomplished legislators as ill-equipped for executive roles not only undermines their proven capabilities but also reveals a glaring bias against individuals who have dedicated themselves to public service through rigorous legislative work.

First, the article’s fundamental claim that skills in lawmaking and advocacy do not translate to executive competence, is a tired cliché that ignores the complex, overlapping nature of political leadership. Executive leadership demands vision, yes, but it also requires a deep understanding of policy, law, and constituency needs, precisely the domains where these legislators excel. To suggest otherwise is to underestimate the intellectual rigor and strategic acumen that legislative work demands.

The piece further maligns legislators by branding them as “combative” or “confrontational,” conveniently overlooking that robust debate and opposition are the lifeblood of a healthy democracy. These so-called “combative” traits are often the marks of leaders who refuse to be co-opted by entrenched interests, those who challenge the status quo to deliver real change. Condemning them for political assertiveness is tantamount to praising complacency and weak governance.

Moreover, the article’s characterization of these leaders as emotionally unfit or lacking in diplomacy reeks of personal attacks disguised as political analysis. Emotional intelligence and coalition-building are not the exclusive domain of any one political class; these are skills developed through experience, empathy, and engagement, qualities many of these legislators have demonstrated repeatedly.

The insinuation that some politicians lack administrative experience is another convenient dodge. Many legislators have served on key committees overseeing budgets, infrastructure, and social services. Their oversight roles have prepared them for executive responsibilities far better than the article admits. Contrasting them unfavorably with local government chairmen ignores the vastly different scopes and scales of governance at the state and local levels.

Finally, the persistent focus on a supposed “powershift” to the Keffi Zone as an unquestionable good smacks of parochialism and political favoritism. Leadership selection should be merit-based, not zone-based, lest we sacrifice competence at the altar of geography.

In sum, this article undermines the potential of Nasarawa’s brightest political minds by peddling stereotypes and unsubstantiated claims. Nasarawa deserves leaders who combine legislative savvy with executive vision, not cynical critiques aimed at derailing promising candidacies.