Fulanis Risking It All

              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.

 

Why the Christian-Muslim Ticket Doesn’t Work in Plateau State

The Muslim-Muslim Ticket of Tinubu and Shettima

Nigerian is a nation where politics flows along religious and tribal canals. The sitting President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, is a Muslim and picked a Muslim running mate during his election. This is something that is happening for the first time in the history of the democratic presidency in Nigeria. The issue has generated tons of conversations in favour of and against. The President, however, chose his running mate based on his calculation of how to secure victory.

I saw a video of an Islamic preacher from Kaduna State talking about why Kaffirs (referring to Christians) hate Mallam Nasiru El Rufai. He said that El Rufai is hated by Christians because he refused to take a Christian running mate and still won the election. The Sheik asked why it is expected of Kaduna when that doesn’t happen in Plateau State.

Well, I think he acted in ignorance.  There are three reasons why Muslims are not taken as running mates in Plateau State.

First reason is the fact that politicians work with numbers that will give them victory. In Plateau State, there are about forty tribes, but five stand out as majority. These are Berom, Taroh, Ngas, Mwaghavul, and Gomai. Since, our politics often follow tribal lines, a gubernatorial candidate would want to pick from any of these tribes to ensure victory.

Second reason is the fact that the Muslims consider it distasteful, giving their votes to a non-Muslim. In the decades since the coming of democracy in Nigeria, Plateau Muslims prefer bringing out a Muslim candidate and casting the bulk of their votes to him, despite knowing it wouldn’t be enough to secure victory. So, a gubernatorial candidate wouldn’t want to pick a Muslim running mate since it doesn’t change the opinion of his Muslim brothers. He would prefer picking from any of the five tribes.

The third reason why chances of a Muslim securing the seat of a running mate in Plateau State is difficult is the fact that Plateau people believe that, across this  country, a Plateau man has never been chosen as a running mate (and will never be)  in any of the remaining thirty-five states. So, why should it be different in Plateau State?