By Dr. Idris Keana

The strongly worded intervention by Mu’azu Abari on the political disagreement between Abdullahi A. Sule and his predecessor, Tanko Al-Makura, reflects a familiar pattern in Nigerian politics—where loyalty is absolutized, dissent is criminalized, and governance is reduced to personal indebtedness.
At first glance, the article presents a compelling emotional appeal, framing Governor Sule as an ungrateful beneficiary of Al-Makura’s political goodwill. However, a closer, more analytical reading reveals a narrative driven more by sentiment than verifiable political context.
No objective observer disputes the pivotal role played by Al-Makura in the political evolution of Nasarawa State and within the All Progressives Congress. His contributions to party building and governance are part of the state’s political history. Yet, to extrapolate this into a perpetual entitlement over the actions and decisions of a sitting governor is to misunderstand the very essence of democratic governance.
The rejoinder must begin by separating mentorship from control. While Al-Makura may have supported Sule’s emergence, the office of the governor is constitutionally independent—not an extension of a political benefactor’s will. To suggest that policy direction, succession planning, or political alignment must remain subject to a former governor’s preferences undermines both institutional integrity and democratic accountability.
Furthermore, the repeated characterization of Governor Sule’s actions as “backstabbing” rests largely on anecdotal assertions rather than substantiated evidence. Political disagreements—especially within ruling parties—are neither new nor inherently destructive. They often signal competing visions, shifting alliances, and the recalibration of political power structures.
Equally concerning is the personalization of political discourse. The article’s references to alleged “depression,” “ingratitude,” and other pejorative descriptions do little to elevate public understanding. Instead, they risk trivializing serious issues while deepening divisions within the polity. Leadership disagreements should be interrogated on policy grounds, not reduced to character attacks.
On the matter of political history, it is important to avoid revisionism. Governor Sule’s pre-2019 trajectory in the private sector and his administrative experience formed part of the rationale for his selection. To dismiss his entire background as politically inconsequential is both reductive and inaccurate. Nigerian politics has increasingly accommodated technocrats whose value lies beyond traditional grassroots mobilization.
The reference to the Supreme Court of Nigeria ruling that affirmed Sule’s electoral victory is also instructive. Judicial validation, regardless of personal opinions, remains the ultimate arbiter in electoral disputes. Framing such outcomes as mere “divine intervention” diminishes the role of legal institutions in sustaining democratic order.
On intra-party dynamics, the crisis within the Nasarawa APC should not be oversimplified as a morality tale of betrayal. Parties are coalitions of interests, and contestation—whether over succession, influence, or ideology—is inevitable. The mention of figures such as Mohammed Adamu and Senator Wadada underscores that the emerging alignments are broader than a two-man dispute.
It is also necessary to address the expectation of political permanence embedded in the article. The suggestion that past loyalty must translate into present subservience reflects a patronage mindset that Nigeria’s democracy must outgrow. Leadership requires independence of judgment, even when it risks discomfort among allies.
None of this absolves Governor Sule of the responsibility to exercise restraint in public communication. If indeed certain remarks attributed to him were made, they fall short of the decorum expected of public office holders. However, this critique must be balanced, not weaponized to construct a one-sided narrative of villainy.
Ultimately, the Sule–Al-Makura imbroglio is less about betrayal and more about the evolving nature of political authority in Nasarawa State. It is a contest between legacy influence and incumbent autonomy, between established networks and emerging alignments.
What Nasarawa requires at this moment is not the amplification of factional rhetoric, but a recommitment to dialogue, institutional respect, and collective progress. Reducing complex political developments to simplistic accusations may satisfy partisan audiences, but it does little to advance governance or democratic maturity.
In the final analysis, history will not judge either man by the intensity of their disagreements, but by their capacity to rise above them in the interest of the state they both claim to serve.