By Rayyanu Bala

The scenario surrounding how Governor Abdullahi Sule interacted with all critical stakeholders and governorship aspirants under the platform of the APC ahead of this coming primaries is already in the public domain. There is no doubt about that.
The first stakeholders’ meeting convened by Governor Sule was held at the Governor’s Lodge in Abuja. Notable figures were in attendance, including Senator Abdullahi Adamu and Senator Tanko Al-Makura. At that meeting, an agreement was reached to zone the governorship slot to Nasarawa West in the spirit of unity and togetherness. When Governor Sule addressed the press immediately afterward, Senator Al-Makura stood by his side and did not utter a word contrary to what the governor said. The impression one could draw was that zoning the governorship slot to the Western zone was a unanimous decision, as there were no dissenting views.
Similarly, Governor Sule held meetings with all the aspirants from the western zone on about two occasions. At each meeting, they agreed that he should choose one among them and pledged to abide by his decision.
However, ironically, as soon as Governor Sule made his decision by announcing Senator Ahmed Wadada Aliyu as his preferred successor, tension arose among the same individuals who had earlier agreed to abide by whatever decision he made. Senator Tanko Al-Makura kicked against the zoning arrangement which he had previously supported. Other aspirants who had also stated that they would abide by the governor’s decision equally opposed it, despite their earlier consent.
This raises an important question: can such individuals be trusted with positions of leadership? They agreed on a process, but because the outcome did not favour them, they reneged on it. A good leader should stand by their word.
There is something deeply unsettling therefore about this scenario. We are talking about people seeking the public’s mandate, individuals who agreed on a course of action but changed their stance the moment it no longer served their personal interests.
Admittedly, such patterns are common in politics. But should we consider them normal? I believe we should not.
From what unfolded around Governor Sule’s consultations with APC stakeholders and governorship aspirants, there is reason to commend rather than condemn him. The transparent nature of the process he followed before arriving at his decision deserves recognition, as it was inclusive and anchored on consensus. Even at the first major stakeholders’ meeting at the Abuja Governor’s Lodge, the optics suggested unanimity.
As in the initial meeting, Governor Sule went beyond surface-level engagement in subsequent consultations. He held one-on-one discussions with the aspirants. In both group and individual settings, the aspirants reportedly agreed to a simple condition: that the governor would choose a consensus candidate, and they would abide by that decision. This approach reflected a mature and collective method of leadership selection which prioritized party cohesion over individual ambition.
Then came the twist.
The moment Governor Sule announced Wadada as his preferred successor, the tone changed. Suddenly, the same voices that had pledged loyalty to the process began to push back. Senator Al-Makura reportedly rejected the zoning arrangement, while other aspirants who had earlier committed to accepting the governor’s decision also walked back their words.
This development raises a fundamental question: what does commitment mean in our political culture, especially when decisions do not go one’s way? Do we honour our word, or do we abandon it when it becomes inconvenient?
The issue goes beyond politics. It touches on trust, integrity, and credibility. If agreements are reached in good faith, is it right to discard them? How can the public have confidence in those seeking to govern? Leadership is not just about winning or being chosen, it is about consistency, reliability, and the discipline to stand by one’s word even when it is against one’s wish.
Of course, politics is dynamic, and people can change their minds. However, outright reneging on a clear agreement does not reflect strong political or moral standing, it signals opportunism.
Governor Sule’s approach, whether one agrees with his final choice or not, was rooted in consultation and consensus-building. The backlash that followed his decision exposes a deeper aspect of human nature: the tendency to prioritize personal ambition over collective agreements.
Leadership is not just about occupying a position, it is about trust. Can leaders who break their word be trusted? Trust, once broken, is difficult to rebuild.