By Rayyanu Bala

There is a certain irony in the argument that Senator Ahmed Wadada Aliyu is campaigning by attacking his opponents rather than talking about issues.
If we are going to have an honest conversation about politics in Nasarawa State, then we should at least begin with the facts.
Senator Wadada has been doing what a serious candidate ought to do: taking his message directly to the people.
He has toured the length and breadth of Nasarawa State, engaging communities, speaking to the people and presenting his HEART agenda as his roadmap for the state. He has also been talking about his record, his experience and what he believes he can bring to the table.
So the question here is simple: which other candidate, across all the political parties in Nasarawa State, has so far undertaken a comparable statewide campaign focused on presenting a clear agenda to the people apart from Wadada?
That is the question those making accusations against Wadada should answer.
It is easy to construct a narrative that Senator Wadada is obsessed with his opponent. But a campaign should be judged by what a candidate is actually doing, not by a convenient storyline created around him.
If Wadada travels across Nasarawa State and speaks about education, healthcare, agriculture, infrastructure, employment, economic opportunities, security and other issues affecting ordinary people, that is issue-based politics.
If he presents his HEART agenda and explains how he intends to govern, that is issue-based politics.
If he puts his experience and record before the electorate and asks voters to judge him on what he has done and what he intends to do, that is issue-based politics.
And if, in the course of  campaigning, he draws attention to the record or public profile of an opponent, that does not automatically transform the entire campaign into a campaign of personal attacks.
There is distinction between criticising a political opponent and insulting a political opponent.
Candidates seeking public office should be scrutinised. Their records, decisions, experience, competence, promises and capacity to lead should all be examined. That is not dirty politics. That is democracy.
Nobody should be above criticism.
The people of Nasarawa State deserve to know what every candidate has done, what they are proposing and why they should be trusted with the responsibility of governing the state.
And that brings us back to the HEART agenda.
Rather than spending all our energy debating a narrative about whether Wadada is attacking someone, shouldn’t we be asking: What exactly is each candidate offering Nasarawa?
Where is the detailed agenda?
Where is the statewide engagement?
Where are the town-hall-style conversations with ordinary citizens?
Where is the evidence that candidates have taken their programmes directly to communities across the state?
Where are the scorecards?
Where is the comparison of records?
These are the questions that matter.
Senator Wadada has not simply sat in one location and expected Nasarawa voters to come looking for him. He has taken his campaign to the people. He has travelled across the state to sell his vision and explain his HEART agenda.
That deserves to be acknowledged, whether one supports him or not.
And this should not be about pretending that Wadada is perfect or that his opponents have nothing to offer. Far from it. Every candidate should be given the opportunity to present his or her case. The electorate should hear everyone, examine everyone and ultimately decide.
But fairness demands that we apply the same standard to everyone.
If the argument is that politics should be about ideas, policies, competence, track records and vision, then let us have that debate.
Put Wadada’s record on one side.
Put Ex-IGP Mohammed Adamu’s record on the other.
Put the programmes of the other candidates on the table as well.
Then let Nasarawa voters compare.
Who has a clear agenda?
Who has demonstrated leadership?
Who has engaged the people across the state?
Who has presented a credible plan for development?
Who has a record that gives voters confidence?
Those are far more meaningful questions than trying to manufacture a controversy around Wadada’s campaign.
Nasarawa people are not naive. They do not need politicians or commentators to tell them whom to like. They are capable of listening, asking questions, comparing candidates and making their own choices.
Yes, let us insist on issue-based politics.
But let us also be honest about who is actually practising it.
Because if Senator Wadada has toured the entire state presenting his HEART agenda, explaining his vision and putting his scorecard before the people, then portraying his campaign as nothing more than an effort to attack his opponent is, at best, an incomplete and dishonest picture.
Nasarawa deserves a contest of ideas. But it also deserves an honest account of the campaigns being run.
Let every candidate come forward.
Let every record be examined.
Let every agenda be viewed honestly.
And ultimately, let the people of Nasarawa decide.