Jeopardizing the Influence They Already Hold
 |
| Nuhu Ribadu and Nasir El Rufai Source: AI |
During the administration of Olusegun Obasanjo (1999–2007), there were three cabinet members I greatly admired. They were Dorothy Akunyili, who headed NAFDAC; Nuhu Ribadu, who headed the EFCC; and Nasir El-Rufai, who served as Minister of the Federal Capital Territory. I admired them for their wisdom, courage, and strong sense of patriotism, qualities that helped them perform effectively in their roles.
I hoped they would continue to serve in government in
various capacities. I particularly wished to see them become governors of their
respective states. For El-Rufai, I believed he had the potential for even
higher responsibilities. My wish for him was fulfilled when he became governor
of Kaduna State. Ribadu made several attempts to become governor of Adamawa
State but was unsuccessful. Akunyili later served as Minister of Information
under President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua before her untimely death, which I deeply
mourned.
Over time, however, some of El-Rufai’s actions as governor
raised questions in my mind. The persistent security challenges in southern
Kaduna, combined with his administration’s approach to appointments — which
many viewed as exclusionary — led me to question how inclusive and equitable
his leadership was. He maintained that appointments were based purely on merit.
This claim was difficult to reconcile with the educational achievements and
available talent in Southern Kaduna, which has historically performed well in
education compared to the northern part of the state.
The escalation of violence in the southern part of the state
further deepened my concerns. At the peak of the banditry problem, El-Rufai
stated that the government had paid some bandits to leave Nigeria’s borders.
Later, his comments about the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) remaining
silent due to the exclusion of Christians from his government, and his
suggestion that this approach could be applied more broadly, added to the
perception of religious and ethnic bias.
Ribadu, after facing political challenges, was eventually
appointed National Security Adviser. In this role, he described the Fulanis
involved in security issues as “brothers” who could not simply be cut off,
comparing them to a part of the body. He also mentioned that some had been
released from detention. These statements raised questions about consistency in
how security-related cases are handled across different ethnic groups.
Both El-Rufai and Ribadu are Fulanis who have built
distinguished careers and are often seen as refined and cosmopolitan. Their
respective positions on issues involving Fulani individuals involved in crime
have led some observers, including myself, to perceive a pattern of ethnic
sympathy. Given the serious nature of the offences — murder, kidnapping, arson,
rape, and others — such perceptions contribute to growing concerns about ethnic
favouritism in addressing national security challenges.
Historically, Fulani communities were generally
well-regarded across Nigeria. However, the recent wave of violence linked to
some Fulani groups has strained relationships. While Fulanis already occupy
significant positions of influence in the country, the on-going conflicts risk
undermining the acceptance and respect they previously enjoyed. In today’s
world, maintaining absolute control over diverse groups is extremely difficult.
If current tensions continue, Fulanis may ultimately lose more influence and
social goodwill than they stand to gain.
