Reported by: Ime Richard Aondofa | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
A fresh political dispute has erupted in Nigeria following a strongly worded rejoinder issued by the Presidency to a widely circulated opinion piece examining the place of Northern Muslims in the political calculations of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration. The article, authored by writer and commentator Mohammed Bello Doka, had raised a series of questions regarding shifting political patterns, rising anxieties in the North, and what many interpret as a recalibration of alliances ahead of the 2027 elections. Although former Kaduna State governor Nasir El-Rufai merely shared the article without comment, the Presidency directed its response at him personally, transforming what was a reflective commentary into a national conversation on governance, inclusion, and political communication.
In his original article, Doka argued that he was not levelling accusations against the President but interrogating observable developments that had unsettled segments of the Northern political class. He posed the question of whether recent decisions were coincidental, strategic, or indicative of a shift away from the Muslim–Muslim coalition that helped deliver Tinubu’s victory in 2023. He emphasised that he made no claims of conspiracy, hostility, or targeted marginalisation, and that his approach was rooted in public accountability and democratic scrutiny. But the official response issued by Sa’adiyyah Adebisi Hassan, later amplified by Presidential Adviser Bayo Onanuga, described the article as alleging that Tinubu was “waging a quiet war” against the Muslim North — a characterisation the author insists is false and designed to distort the public conversation.
Doka’s rejoinder expressed concern that the Presidency appeared more interested in attacking El-Rufai than addressing the issues raised. He clarified that El-Rufai neither commissioned, edited, nor endorsed the work; he simply shared it. According to him, treating the sharing of an article as proof of endorsement sets a dangerous precedent, especially when invoked by individuals who speak in an official capacity. He argued that if such logic were applied consistently, every article shared by a presidential spokesperson must therefore be considered the position of the Federal Government, a claim he said would be absurd yet instructive in understanding the fragility of political discourse at the moment.
The author also criticised what he described as the rejoinder’s attempt to assign blame for past national failures to Muslim Northerners by noting their dominance in top security and political positions during President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration. He argued that such a framing was both inaccurate and inflammatory because it suggested that governance failure could be read through the lens of religion and regional origin. According to him, this approach risks deepening longstanding fault lines at a time when the nation needs careful bridge-building and empathetic leadership. He warned that when government-aligned voices imply that certain regions or religious groups are inherently responsible for national decline, it becomes a combustible message with implications that extend far beyond political debate.
Doka further challenged the Presidency’s claim that Tinubu’s administration is driven entirely by competence rather than regional balancing. He countered this by referencing socioeconomic indicators showing widespread hardship, rising poverty, and persistent insecurity across the country. He noted that independent data from institutions such as the World Bank, the National Bureau of Statistics, UNICEF, and UNESCO paint a stark picture of a country struggling under severe economic pressure. According to him, poverty levels have risen, the number of out-of-school children has climbed, violent killings remain unacceptably high, and inflation has eroded purchasing power despite recent statistical easing. For Doka, these realities contradict the government’s narrative that its reform trajectory is unequivocally positive.
The writer also took issue with what he termed the dismissive tone of the Presidency’s rejoinder, which he said mocked genuine concerns as “manufactured victimhood” and portrayed public anxieties as the result of manipulation. He argued that such rhetoric fails to recognise the depth of unease in the North, where communities continue to face severe insecurity, diminishing political capital, and limited federal engagement. He insisted that national healing requires thoughtful communication rather than ridicule, and that governments must address legitimate fears with clarity instead of contempt. He warned that reforms, no matter how technically sound, often fail when leaders underestimate the emotional and sociopolitical environment in which they are implemented.
Despite the intensity of the Presidency’s response, Doka maintained that the central questions he raised remain unanswered. Among them are concerns about the apparent sidelining of influential Muslim Northern political figures ahead of the 2027 electoral season, the continued devastation of Northern communities by bandits and insurgents, and the perceived mismatch between federal budget priorities and the scale of humanitarian crises in the region. He also highlighted the silence surrounding a growing narrative that the current administration may believe it can retain power in 2027 without substantial support from the North, a development he argued has serious implications for national unity and political stability. According to him, these issues deserve interrogation, not hostility, because they speak to the evolving architecture of Nigerian politics and the expectations of citizens who feel increasingly unheard.
In his conclusion, Doka appealed to the Federal Government to resist the temptation to treat every inquiry as an attack or every critique as an act of sabotage. He stressed that democratic societies thrive when leaders engage tough questions rather than silence them, and that accountability is most meaningful when those in power respond with candour and respect. He argued that the current controversy should serve as a reminder that governance is not merely about asserting authority but about winning trust, especially in a nation where regional sensitivities shape political identity.
As the debate continues, the episode has opened a broader national conversation about transparency, political inclusiveness, and the tone of government communication. Whether the Presidency will respond to the underlying questions or allow the dispute to deepen remains to be seen. But for now, Nigerians are left watching a disagreement that has transcended personalities and grown into a symbolic test of how a diverse country grapples with truth, scrutiny, and leadership in a critical political moment.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ [info@stonereportersnews.com](mailto:info@stonereportersnews.com) | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments