By Rayyanu Bala
There is something quite disturbing about the way Governor Abdullahi A. Sule has become a target of sustained political attacks in Nasarawa State. It is almost as if, in the eyes of certain political actors within the APC, the governor has committed an unforgivable offence.
But what exactly is his sin? Why has he suddenly become a convenient target for every criticism, political attack and controversy?
His offence is that he dared to stand by the principle of zoning and refused to surrender the political future of Nasarawa State to a handful of individuals who seem to believe that the state belongs to them.
Since Governor Sule publicly affirmed his commitment to zoning, particularly the agitation for Nasarawa West to have its turn at the governorship in 2027, some political elements have made it their mission to discredit him at every opportunity. Whenever he speaks, his words are twisted. Whenever he makes a decision, a fault is found in it. His policies and programmes are subjected to relentless criticism, sometimes without any serious attempt to acknowledge their merits.
Of course, no governor should be above criticism. Public office comes with responsibility, and citizens have every right to question government policies and demand accountability. However, there is a clear difference between constructive criticism motivated by genuine concern for the people and politically motivated attacks designed to weaken an administration simply because the governor refuses to play by certain political interests.
One thing we must all understand is that the problem some of these political actors have with Governor Sule has little or nothing to do with his performance in office. Rather, it stems from his refusal to allow them to dictate the political destiny of the entire state. That is their real problem with him.
They desire a political arrangement in which they decide who succeeds Governor Sule in 2027, who succeeds that successor, and perhaps who occupies every important political position thereafter. In such an arrangement, the people of Nasarawa State would simply be spectators while a privileged few dictate the direction of the state.
That is the kind of political dominion that Governor Sule is unwilling to accommodate.
And rightly so. Nasarawa State is bigger than any individual, political group or family. Its political future cannot and should not become the private property of those who believe that access to power gives them permanent ownership of the state.
The governor’s insistence on equity and inclusiveness should therefore not be interpreted as an act of political rebellion. Rather, it should be seen as an attempt to preserve the spirit of fairness upon which a united Nasarawa State must be built.
Now let us look at the zoning question more closely.
Zoning is not necessarily about denying anybody their political rights. It is about creating a fair political arrangement in which different geographical and political interests have a reasonable opportunity to participate in leadership. In a state as politically diverse as Nasarawa, such an arrangement can serve as an important instrument for promoting unity, balance and political stability.
Governor Sule has openly acknowledged the importance of zoning, even recalling that the political arrangement contributed to his own emergence as governor. It is therefore understandable that he would consider it important to preserve a similar sense of fairness for other parts of the state.
If Nasarawa South has had its opportunity, why should the aspiration of Nasarawa West to produce the next governor become a source of hostility?
Why should supporting a principle of political rotation suddenly become a political offence?
And why should the governor be expected to abandon a position he considers fair and necessary simply because some powerful political interests are uncomfortable with it?
These are questions that deserve honest answers.
The argument should not be about who has the strongest political connections or who can intimidate others into submission. It should be about what arrangement best serves the collective interest of Nasarawa State.
The incidents surrounding the presidential campaign rally in Lafia, particularly at the Emir’s Palace and Lafia Square, also deserve to be viewed within this broader political context.
Rather than treating the controversy as an isolated political disagreement, it is important to examine the narratives that followed and the political interpretations attached to those incidents.
To many observers, the controversy appeared to provide an opportunity for opponents of Governor Sule’s zoning position to create the impression that his political direction did not enjoy public support. The incidents were subsequently used to reinforce arguments against the governor’s position on the 2027 governorship arrangement.
But we must ask: Is the opposition to zoning really about the interests of the people, or is it about the political ambitions of a few individuals?
There is a danger in allowing isolated political incidents to become instruments for distorting a much bigger conversation about equity and representation.
The people of Nasarawa State deserve a mature political conversation, not manufactured sentiments. They deserve political leaders who can disagree without turning every disagreement into a battle for personal survival.
Perhaps the most important point in this entire debate is the need to remind those leaders that political power is temporary, but the state and its people remain.
Nobody should have the exclusive right to determine who governs Nasarawa State in 2027 or beyond. Political parties have their processes, aspirants have their ambitions, and the people have their constitutional right to choose their leaders.
Those who believe they must control the emergence of every successive governor are missing the fundamental purpose of democracy.
Governor Sule may have his political preferences, just as other political actors have theirs. However, the larger principle of equity deserves consideration beyond individual ambitions. Supporting Nasarawa West’s aspiration does not mean that other parts of the state are less important. It simply means recognising that every senatorial district deserves a sense of belonging in the political arrangement of the state.
It is also important to recognise that the people of Nasarawa State are politically conscious. They cannot be treated as passive instruments in the hands of a godfather. They have their own aspirations, interests and understanding of what is best for their communities and the state at large.
As the political atmosphere heats up ahead of 2027, there will certainly be disagreements, criticisms and competing interests. That is normal in a democracy. But political disagreements should not become an excuse for a sustained campaign of hostility against Engr Sule simply because he refuses to endorse a particular ambition.
Governor Sule should be judged fairly on his record in office, his policies, his decisions and his commitment to the people. Where he has done well, he deserves recognition. Where he has fallen short, he should be constructively criticised.
But reducing every action of his administration to political propaganda or interpreting every public statement through the lens of personal political disagreements does not help Nasarawa State.
The question is not whether Governor Sule should be criticised. The question is whether the criticism is genuinely about the welfare of the people or simply about the frustration of those whose political calculations have not been met.
At the end of the day, no individual should be allowed to hold the future of Nasarawa State hostage.
The real sin of A. A. Sule, is his refusal to surrender the state to their ambitions. But if standing for equity, inclusiveness and a fair political arrangement is a sin, then perhaps it is a sin worth defending.
Nasarawa State belongs to all of us. We must stand up against intimidation, political blackmail and the ambitions of a privileged few.
The people of Nasarawa State deserve better. And history will judge every political actor fairly or unfairly.
But before then, we must know that the Sin of A. A. Sule is only for his Standing for Equity and the principles of zoning.
