By Mohammed Kilema

The submission under review is elegantly composed and rhetorically engaging; however, beneath its polished surface lies a series of assumptions that do not fully align with the practical realities of political leadership, party dynamics, and democratic culture within Nigeria. A more measured and context-sensitive appraisal reveals that the actions of Abdullahi A. Sule, particularly his presentation of Ahmed Aliyu Wadada as his preferred successor, are neither undemocratic nor imprudent. On the contrary, they fall squarely within the bounds of legitimate political conduct, informed leadership, and strategic party stewardship.
To begin with, the central argument advanced by the critic—that the distinction between a “preferred aspirant” and a “candidate” is politically insignificant—does not withstand careful scrutiny. In constitutional and party terms, the difference is both clear and consequential. A preferred aspirant is, by definition, an individual who enjoys the confidence or endorsement of a leader or influential stakeholder, while a candidate is one who has emerged through a formal, rule-bound process as the party’s flagbearer. To conflate the two is to disregard the procedural safeguards embedded within the party system. Governor Sule’s expression of preference does not, in any legal or institutional sense, confer candidacy upon Senator Wadada. The mechanisms of screening, nomination, and primary election remain intact and operative.
Moreover, it is important to recognise that political leadership, by its very nature, entails the exercise of judgment. A sitting governor is not merely an administrator; he is the de facto leader of his party within the state, entrusted with the responsibility of safeguarding its cohesion, continuity, and electoral viability. In this regard, the articulation of a preferred successor is neither novel nor inappropriate. It is, rather, an expression of strategic foresight. By identifying an individual whom he believes possesses the requisite competence, experience, and political capital to sustain and build upon the achievements of his administration, Governor Sule is fulfilling a legitimate leadership function.
The assertion that such a presentation “tilts the psychological and political balance” of the forthcoming primary election is, with respect, an overextension. Politics, in every democratic setting, is inherently shaped by endorsements, alliances, and signals from influential actors. These elements are not aberrations; they are integral components of the political process. To suggest that the mere expression of preference undermines the level playing field is to impose an unrealistic standard of neutrality—one that is neither observed in practice nor required by any established democratic norm. What is essential is that the formal processes remain free, fair, and competitive. There is no evidence to suggest that Governor Sule’s actions have compromised these processes.
Equally, the critique’s dismissal of precedent as an insufficient justification for current practice overlooks the role of institutional continuity in political systems. The All Progressives Congress (APC) in Nasarawa State has evolved through the contributions and precedents set by its leaders, including Umaru Tanko Al-Makura and Abdullahi Adamu. While it is true that political systems must aspire to improvement, reform must be grounded in pragmatism rather than abstraction. Where established practices have contributed to party stability and electoral success, they cannot be dismissed out of hand. The invocation of precedent, therefore, is not an admission of systemic deficiency but a recognition of the accumulated experience that informs present decision-making.
Furthermore, the critique’s reliance on what may be described as a tu quoque line of reasoning—particularly in its reference to alleged inconsistencies on the part of former Governor Al-Makura—does little to advance the substantive argument. Even if such inconsistencies were established, they would neither invalidate nor diminish the legitimacy of Governor Sule’s actions. The propriety of an act must be assessed on its own merits, not on the perceived shortcomings of its critics. In this respect, the attempt to shift focus from the action itself to the personalities involved serves only to weaken the analytical rigour of the critique.
It is also necessary to address the contention that emphasising Senator Wadada’s credentials is irrelevant to the issue at hand. On the contrary, leadership decisions are inextricably linked to considerations of merit. The process of political succession is not a mechanical exercise; it is a deliberative one, informed by an assessment of competence, experience, and electability. By expressing confidence in Senator Wadada, Governor Sule is not pre-empting the judgment of party delegates but offering his considered opinion as a leader who is intimately acquainted with the demands of governance and the intricacies of the state’s political landscape. Delegates, in turn, retain the autonomy to accept or reject this recommendation through the ballot.
The argument concerning “asymmetry of power” between a sitting governor and other political actors, while not without merit, is ultimately misplaced in this context. It is axiomatic that incumbency confers a degree of influence. However, influence, in and of itself, does not constitute impropriety. The critical question is whether such influence has been exercised in a manner that undermines due process or coerces outcomes. There is no credible evidence to suggest that Governor Sule has engaged in any form of coercion, manipulation, or exclusion. His engagement with Bola Ahmed Tinubu, moreover, must be understood within the broader framework of party consultation and coordination. It does not amount to an imposition, nor does it bind the hands of party delegates.
Indeed, the portrayal of the President’s role in this matter warrants careful clarification. In the Nigerian political system, the President, even as the leader of the ruling party, does not possess the authority to unilaterally determine gubernatorial candidates. That prerogative resides with the party’s internal mechanisms, culminating in the primary election. The presentation of a preferred aspirant to the President is, therefore, largely symbolic—an act of political courtesy and alignment rather than a decisive intervention. To ascribe to it a determinative influence is to exaggerate its practical effect.
Finally, the notion that true neutrality requires the governor to refrain entirely from expressing any preference is both unrealistic and undesirable. Leadership, by definition, involves taking positions, making judgments, and providing direction. A governor who abdicates this responsibility in the name of an abstract ideal of neutrality would risk creating a vacuum of leadership, with potentially destabilising consequences for the party. What is required is not the absence of preference, but the presence of fairness—and there is no indication that fairness has been compromised in this instance.
In summation, the actions of Governor Sule must be evaluated within the proper context of political leadership and party dynamics. His endorsement of Senator Wadada represents a legitimate exercise of his role as party leader, informed by his assessment of the state’s needs and the party’s strategic interests. It does not preclude competition, nor does it invalidate the primary process. Rather, it provides a framework within which the party can engage in a structured and informed contest of ideas and personalities.
The line between preference and imposition is both real and significant. In this case, that line has been respected. The processes of democracy remain intact, the autonomy of delegates is preserved, and the integrity of the party’s internal mechanisms is undiminished. To characterise the governor’s action as politically imprudent is, therefore, to misapprehend both its intent and its effect. Far from undermining democratic norms, it exemplifies the exercise of responsible and strategic leadership within a complex and dynamic political environment.

Mohammed Kilema writes from Lafia, Nasarawa State