By Rayyanu Bala

Of course, Labaran Maku is someone I once greatly admired. I respected his courage from his days as a student at the University of Jos. His commitment to Marxist philosophy, alongside my elder brother, Ibrahim Shehu (Dallas), now a Professor of Law at ABU Zaria, was truly inspiring.
I was also impressed by his opinions during his time at the Nigerian Standard in Jos and later at the Champion newspaper in Lagos.
However, my perception of Labaran Maku changed completely after he joined politics. Since then, I have come to see him as an ethnic champion.
His claim that all past governors of Nasarawa State were imposed on the state by people from outside who have no roots in the state has further reinforced my view that he is a promoter of ethnic sentiments.
His assertion that governors have consistently been imposed on the people of Nasarawa State by external forces raises serious questions not only about the state’s political history but also about his own role within the system.
By declaring that “governors are imposed on the people of Nasarawa despite having no political roots in the state,” Maku has, by implication, included every governor who has led the state since its creation. That include Senator Abdullahi Adamu, under whose administration Maku first served as Commissioner for Information before later becoming Deputy Governor.
If Maku genuinely believed that Senator Abdullahi Adamu was an imposed governor who lacked the legitimacy of the people’s mandate, what prevented him from rejecting the appointments he readily accepted? Why did he not decline the position of Commissioner for Information? Why did he later accept elevation to the office of Deputy Governor under the same administration?
It is difficult to reconcile today’s sweeping allegations with yesterday’s active participation in the very government he now appears to delegitimize. Maku should know that public office comes with responsibility, and those who willingly served at the highest levels of government cannot conveniently distance themselves from that history years later for political expediency.
If there were genuine concerns about external interference in Nasarawa’s politics, the appropriate time to raise them was while serving in government, not years after leaving office. This type criticism do undermines credibility and raises questions about the true motivation behind such statements.
Nasarawa’s political history is far more complex than Maku’s simplistic narrative that every governor was imposed on the people. Such assertions are capable of diminishing the contributions of past administrations and disregarding the choices and aspirations of the citizens who participated in the democratic process.
It is high time that political discourse in Nasarawa State was guided by facts, consistency, and a sense of responsibility. Revisiting history should not become an exercise in rewriting it to suit personal political interests.
The people of Nasarawa deserve constructive criticism and engagements not condemnation. Maku’s outburst therefore contradicts even his own record of public service in the state.

Enough of this shenanigan